Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for further consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 21 March.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 19 March at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Speaker: As Bills 2 to 9 have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them together.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)

HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 March.

MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

School Playing Fields

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many acres of school playing fields have been sold in the past year; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): In the past year, eight acres of surplus playing fields associated with Orangefield secondary school in Belfast were sold, but will continue to be used as playing fields.

Mr. Greenway: I welcome that reply and wish that England had a similar record. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the green lungs which playing fields represent will be preserved at all costs in Northern Ireland, and that the Government will see to it that boys and girls at school there receive a proper physical and sporting education and have the playing fields needed for that purpose?

Dr. Mawhinney: I can assure my hon. Friend on all the latter parts of his question. We attach considerable importance to physical education and sport and to providing the facilities necessary to carry them out. I cannot promise, however, that we shall maintain a green lungs policy at any cost; but I assure my hon. Friend that we shall not dispose of playing fields and open spaces unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the assurance that there will be sporting facilities, but does not the Minister think that it was wrong of the Belfast education and library board to decide to put on the market the part of the property adjacent to Finaghy primary school containing a swimming pool, when the board could have put the other side of the school on the market and maintained the swimming pool as a needed leisure facility in the Finaghy area?

Dr. Mawhinney: As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that decision was taken not by the Government but by the Belfast education and library board. However, I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General.

Small Businesses

Mr. Stevens: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses have been created in Northern Ireland in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): This information is not available. However, as an indicator, VAT registrations during 1988 and 1989 show an estimated 7,700 new, mostly small, businesses.

Mr. Stevens: I am grateful for that reply, particularly as I understand that my hon. Friend only arrived back in this country at about six o'clock this morning after trying to promote Northern Ireland in Japan.
Do not the figures that my hon. Friend has quoted confirm the success of the Government's enterprise initiatives in Northern Ireland, and are not they a tribute to the spirit of the people there, who are determined to push aside the effects of terrorism in that Province?

Mr. Needham: Domo arigato gozaimasu Stevens-san. One thousand more new businesses started in the past two years in Northern Ireland than in the preceding two years. Self-employment has risen by 60 per cent. in the non-agricultural sectors since 1981 and the Northern Ireland economy is going through the recession exceptionally well, as evidenced by today's unemployment figures. However, as my hon. Friend remarked, more should and must be done because small businesses are the crucial base for our future expansion. I am confident that new businesses will continue to grow on the basis of our present success.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask the Minister to interpret the first sentence of his answer for Hansard?

Mr. Needham: I said, "Thank you very much."

Mr. Clifford Forsythe: The Minister will be aware that we welcome any businesses coming into Northern Ireland or any businesses that start up in Northern Ireland, but does he agree that the time has come to give local small businesses the same sum per job created as that given to outside enterprises coming into Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: It is crucial that we remain competitive with Wales, Scotland, the Republic, Portugal or any other countries in trying to attract business, including outside enterprises coming in to Northern Ireland. We still give considerable incentives to business in Northern Ireland. It is crucial that our help should be directed to marketing, training and improving productivity and competitiveness instead of merely giving grants. The fact that we are moving to a more competitive business environment in Northern Ireland, with more productivity, better marketing and better selling, means that our business is doing better. We shall help small business, but small business must do everything it can to help itself.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome the Minister's remarks, as I welcome everything that is being done to bring small businesses to Northern Ireland. Bearing in mind that the Minister says that we are getting through the recession successfully, perhaps he will deal with the other side of the coin and tell us how many small businesses have had to close down in the past two years?

Mr. Needham: About 6,000 have deregistered in the past couple of years, but that is not a substantially greater figure than hitherto. I repeat that the Northern Ireland economy is growing at a faster pace than that of the rest of the country. That can be seen from the fact that our unemployment figures are hardly rising, if they are rising at all. We have reports from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte, PA Consultants, even the Northern Ireland Economic Research Council, which is not the most optimistic of bodies, the Trustee Savings bank and the British chambers of commerce stating that the Northern Ireland economy is coming through the downturn in the economy better than any other region—something that has not happened at any time since 1921.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. John D. Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his most recent discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland about a replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): After discussions, not only with the Irish Government but with the leaders of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, I have drawn up a text which I believe provides a sound basis for formal political talks on all the key relationships. This text which, in my view, respects the essential principles of all concerned, is now being sent to all the potential participants, with the request that they should respond to me, I hope positively, before Easter. I shall make the text public in due course.
Fourteen months of painstaking collective effort about important but essentially preliminary points lie behind us. Against that background, I do not believe that we can sensibly engage in further textual barter. The moment for decision has come. We have a real chance to move forward together to substantive talks. These would offer the prospect of a significant transfer of power to local politicians in Northern Ireland and a new beginning for relationships between both parts of Ireland, and among the peoples of these islands.

Mr. Taylor: That was a substantial reply, which we in the Ulster Unionist party welcome. The party has always been keen on talks within Northern Ireland and eventual talks with Dublin.
Is the Secretary of State aware that his reply is timely, bearing in mind, as he emphasised, that he has been on the job for 14 months and that many people in Northern Ireland were beginning to lose interest in the process? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why the document that he agreed with the Ulster Unionist parties on 24 December—Christmas eve—was subsequently rejected by the Dublin Government about seven weeks later? Is that because the Dublin Government, as reported in the press, now refuse to talk to Ulster Unionists as part of the United Kingdom delegation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people in Northern Ireland see the Dublin Government using the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a vehicle through which to obstruct political progress in Northern Ireland and talks between Unionists and the Dublin Government?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for what I said. No one could be more conscious than I that we have been 14 months engaged in the process, as I have lived through every moment of them. As to the text that I have discussed, not only with the Unionists but with the other potential participants in the talks, at all stages there has been discussion about whether we could find a draft that would be acceptable to everybody. Now that we have reached the stage where I am putting forward a text which I hope respects the interests of all concerned, if we can proceed during the immediate future with good will towards all other participants, we are more likely to get to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in many quarters of the press there will be


confusion about his statement today, for over past weeks and months many had expected the Secretary of State eventually to mourn the passing of his initiative but instead find him with the air of an expectant father? He believes that he has a text which will get support from the parties in Northern Ireland and the Dublin Government. Can he tell us whether he has come to that conclusion because of his talks with party leaders and with the Dublin Government? Has the gap that existed after 24 December been narrowed as a result of his meeting with the Government of the Irish Republic? May I assure the Secretary of State on behalf of my party that when the text is made available to us it will be examined carefully but in a positive light?

Mr. Brooke: Throughout the process I have always been disturbed by the association of my name with the initiative, on the general basis of the case of the Liberal peer, the publication of whose memoirs at the turn of the century was held up for three weeks because the printers had run out of capital "I"s. As to the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, throughout the exercise there has been a continuing convergence towards narrowing the gap. I pay tribute to all concerned for their contributions to the process.

Mr. Duffy: Will the Secretary of State not be discouraged by the reluctance of certain parties in Northern Ireland to sit down and talk, which may owe less to a lack of political will than to private hopes about the outcome of the general election? Will he draw comfort from the fact that certain items on the political agenda, which were not there when he arrived, owe much to his political courage and imagination?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his closing sentence. I have riot been discouraged as we have gone through the process, because there has been a desire for convergence on everybody's part and everyone has played a constructive role. As to the result of the general election, that is a subject about which I have no doubts.

Mr. Kilfedder: I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on his untiring endeavours to promote talks. I look forward to seeing the document which will be published in due course. I hope that it will ensure that there will be talks. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the Foreign Office makes all proper arrangements for the visit of the President of the Irish Republic when she comes to the United Kingdom in June, albeit on a private visit, so that we can show that the people of the whole United Kingdom wish nothing but the best of friendly relations with the Irish Republic?

Mr. Brooke: There is a slight element of a concealed agenda in the hon. Gentleman's question, but I have no doubt that everyone will welcome the President of the Irish Republic as and when she comes.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not the case that substantial political progress depends in essence on two matters—first, that the minority community in Northern Ireland should have an input and that both communities should be treated on an equal basis and, secondly, as has fortunately been the case in the past few years, that there should be growing co-operation between the Irish Republic and this country? One hopes that that co-operation, which to a certain extent

is shown by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will remain in force and will be part of the policy of the present Government as well as of future Governments.

Mr. Brooke: Underlying the talks of the past 14 months has been the proposition that I put on 9 January last year, that any arrangements likely to succeed would need to enjoy widespread acceptance. That has informed all our discussions. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Irish Government have been involved in those talks continuously over the past 14 months and have made their own input to them.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to ensure that the majority community is positive, flexible and responsible, he ought to make it clear now that there will be no unreasonable veto of the minorities or of the Irish Republic, so that a deal can be made that will be acceptable both to the minority community and to Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Brooke: One of the considerations that has informed all our conversations has been the awareness of all taking part that everyone has the freedom to withdraw from them, if they wish to do so. In that sense, although I personally would not use the word, everyone has a veto, but I sincerely hope that it will not be used.

Mr. McNamara: We admire the Secretary of State's tenacity over the past 14 months and, as he knows, we have wished him well in his discussions. We share to a degree the regret that he must feel that it has been necessary for him to issue today what amounts to an ultimatum. That is a matter of regret for us. Is it the Secretary of State's opinion, on the basis of his discussions, that it is possible for all the parties involved to sit down and work things out according to a suitable timetable? Does he agree that if the parties concerned do not accept his position, we shall be back at square one? Does he further agree that the three relationships will have to be re-examined, whatever might replace his present round of talks—though I hope that they will not be replaced? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the next fortnight will be an important time for reflection for the people who are party to the discussions, because the only persons who will delight in the talks not progressing further after the next fortnight will be the men of violence from both communities?

Mr. Brooke: It was not in my mind to present what the hon. Gentleman described as an ultimatum, but, after 14 months of constructive negotiation with all the parties, I am concerned to take personal responsibility, on behalf of the Government, for a text that will be acceptable to all. In that sense, and by definition, I run the risk that everyone will accuse me of misreading the tea leaves in making that proposition. Nevertheless, I believe that that is a sensible way to draw matters to a conclusion. As to returning to square one and dealing with three relationships, that seems to be a form of multidimensional chess, but I will endeavour to unravel the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I wholly agree with his remarks about terrorists.

Community Relations

Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his plans to encourage the churches to promote community relations.

Dr. Mawhinney: The Government have indicated on a number of occasions that they are prepared to help Church-based programmes which promote cross-community contact, greater mutual understanding, or appreciation of cultural diversity. In addition, I have met the Church leaders twice to explore what further help the Government could give to encourage local initiatives. I hope to meet them again in the near future.

Mr. Burns: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucially important in encouraging community relations that the churches should conduct ecumenical acts of worship and work together in the community?

Dr. Mawhinney: Ecumenical services and the like are matters for the churches and for Church leaders, not for Government Ministers. I agree strongly with my hon. Friend that the involvement and standing of churches in the Northern Ireland community give them a significant role to play, should they be willing to accept it, in those areas which are, in the first instance, divorced from theology or worship.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree that much more has been done at congregational level than has sometimes been given credit? Does he accept that one of the greatest hindrances to better community relations is a separate Church-based education system which penalises children going to state or integrated schools, and in which many priests will not even help children to take their first communion?

Dr. Mawhinney: I certainly agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is a lot going on, on a cross-community basis, with the Church and churches at its focus. As to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the Government believe that parents should have the opportunity to make choices concerning the education of their children. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcomes the fact that, as a consequence of the introduction of the cross-community scheme a couple of years ago, about one third of all the schools in the Province, and about 300 youth clubs are involved in joint local projects. That was not happening a few years ago and it is a measure of the progress that has been achieved. I look forward to more progress in the years ahead.

Rev. Ian Paisley: In view of the remarks that the hon. Member has just replied to, will he confirm to the House that the Moderator of the largest Protestant church in Northern Ireland, the Irish Presbyterian church, has made it clear that he will not take part during his office in any ecumenical services, and that that is not merely the view of one Protestant communion? Does not he think that it would also be helpful to community relations if he gave the same type of help to Protestant church schools as he gives to Roman Catholic church schools?

Dr. Mawhinney: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I repeat what I said in my initial answer. The behaviour of Church leaders towards ecumenical services is a matter for them to decide, not for

Government Ministers. Outside the direct theological issues and issues of worship and joint worship I know that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the churches are involved in many other activities which would provide a platform for more joint action than takes place at the moment. On the second part of his question, I think that he understands that what he refers to as Protestant churches are able to apply to the Department of Education for funding for Protestant church schools on the same basis as any other school. I shall reflect his concern to my right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General, who now has responsibility for these matters.

Terrorism

Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress towards eradicating terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: The Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported by the armed forces, continues to make progress towards the defeat of terrorism, within the rule of law. It does this by pre-empting, deterring and, as necessary, responding effectively to terrorist attack. During 1990, 380 persons were charged and 440 persons were convicted for terrorist related offences, including 80 and 35 for murder and attempted murder respectively. Some 223 weapons, nearly 22,500 rounds of ammunition and more than 4,300 lb of explosives were recovered. We shall continue to be resolute in our determination to end terrorism in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stanbrook: If my right hon. Friend wants to deal with the political causes of Irish terrorism, will he consider redrawing the border between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic so as to exclude those who do not wish to be British and to include in Northern Ireland only those people who do, with generous resettlement grants for those who find themselves on the wrong side of the border from their point of view?

Mr. Brooke: I mean no disrespect to the question asked by my hon. Friend, but I cannot think of anything that would be more likely to encourage terrorism than if it were seen that a redrawing of the border followed from their actions. At a more general level, it is my experience with borderlines that someone is always cross to be on the wrong side of them.

Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread support for the attitude of the General Office Commanding Northern Ireland in his references to the defeat of terror in the Gulf area? Does the Secretary of State agree that there is an urgent need for the eradication of terrorism, whether it is directed by Saddam's army council or by the self-styled army council of the IRA?

Mr. Brooke: The GOC's statement earlier this week, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, could not have been clearer. It was a resolute statement of Government policy and I stand wholly behind it.

Rev. William McCrea: For over 20 years now, the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have endured the scourge of terrorism. Will the Secretary of State tell the House and my constituents when the victory over terrorism will be won? Does he not agree that the


secret of the Gulf war lay in the lack of political interference in military measures? Will he tell the House that the Government will adopt the same resolute manner in eradicating terrorism in Northern Ireland, and that the handcuffs and the political restraints will be removed from the security forces, so that they can do their job in a proper military fashion?

Mr. Brooke: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date for the victory over terrorism, but I have no doubt that it will occur. In answer to the second question, let me repeat that the security forces in Northern Ireland operate under the rule of law and I do not believe that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would wish it otherwise.

Mr. McNamara: I welcome the encouraging figures given by the Secretary of State. May I ask him two specific questions? First, has the review of the question of permanent vehicle checkpoints been completed yet? Secondly, are the Government taking any steps to try to protect taxi drivers from the special risks to which they currently seem to be subject?

Mr. Brooke: A good deal of work is being put into reviewing the PVCP policy. I cannot commit myself to a timetable for the conclusion of the review, but I accept that different views are held in the community about the value of PVCPs, which I have discussed with representatives of that community. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about taxi drivers, and we are looking into that.

Self-government

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions he has had with leaders of the political parties about a measure of self-government for the Province.

Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have, within the last fortnight, met the leaders of all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. As a result of my conversations with them, I have been able to take the steps that I outlined a few moments ago in my answer to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor).

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Building on that answer, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether he agrees that the heartfelt longing of so many people in the Province for a measure of political stability and local administration should take precedence over anything else that he may seek to achieve in any further talks? In his talks with the political parties, did he find enough common ground among them to encourage him to believe that a devolved Administration in the Province may be possible in the not-too-distant future?

Mr. Brooke: The longing to which my hon. Friend has referred has come through not only to me but to the leaders of political parties with whom I have been engaged in conversation. I have observed concern that the talks should succeed, and that we should proceed to constructive measures. The fact that we have been able to reach the point that we have reached, and that I have been able to draft the text to which I have referred, is, I think, evidence that common ground is beginning to exist.

Mr. Harry Barnes: To what extent is a Bill of Rights on the agenda in the discussions? Such a Bill would be

particularly appropriate for Northern Ireland, because it would protect minorities in different sets of circumstances —both Protestant minorities in Catholic areas, and vice versa.

Mr. Brooke: I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what I am in the process of putting to the political leaders; it is a confidential matter between them and me. I can tell him, however, that—as I have said on previous occasions—although the Government do not see a Bill of Rights as an early part of any agenda, they would be prepared to consider it if it became relevant in the conclusion of an overall arrangement.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that none of his many friends in the House wish him to be viceroy or proconsul for ever? We wish his latest initiative every success, bearing in mind the fact that it follows in the long tradition that has been going on for more than 400 years.

Mr. Brooke: I am certain that that was a very nice remark of my hon. Friend's; in that spirit, I hope that I am correct in agreeing with him.

Political Progress

Mr. Mallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last had discussions with the representatives of the Government of the Republic of Ireland about political progress in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Brooke: I last met the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Collins, on 11 March.

Mr. Mallon: I very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement today and I am glad that a final draft is being put to the parties, not least because 14 months is a long time—it feels like 400 years—for the discussions. Does the Secretary of State agree that, if negotiations take place, as I hope, they will be based on the three sets of relationships that we discussed in great detail during the previous talks? Does he further agree that it is only on the basis of those three sets of relationships that a workable and lasting arrangement can be found?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said, and I share his sense of the passage of time. I do not mean to be discouraging when I say that the 100 years war went on for 116 years.
The three sets of relationships have informed all the discussions that we have had, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they seem to be the best basis for such talks in terms of securing widespread acceptance.

Mr. Bellingham: When the Secretary of State had these discussions with his Irish republican counterparts, was extradition on the agenda? Can he say exactly whether the new extradition arrangements are working properly?

Mr. Brooke: I am not sure that extradition per se falls into the category of political progress, which is the question that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) asked me; but in the meetings that we have at the Intergovernmental Conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, extradition is of course discussed, and there are exchanges in both directions.

Mr. Trimble: I should like to refer the Secretary of State to Tuesday's Irish Times, in which Mr. John Bruton, the leader of Fine Gael, the second largest party in the Irish Republic, is reported to have said:
The deletion by the Irish Government"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Paraphrase it, please.

Mr. Trimble: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to refer the Secretary of State to Tuesday's Irish Times report in which Mr. John Bruton, the leader of Fine Gael, the second largest party in the Irish Republic, is reported to have said that the deletion by the Government of the Irish Republic of the reference to Northern Ireland's status as part of the United Kingdom from its latest proposals showed that the Irish Government's main objective was to try to arm-twist the Unionists into a united Ireland. This view is reinforced by a statement of Mr. Ahern, a member of the Dublin Cabinet, in which he said that any solution that did not provide for movement towards an all-Ireland unitary state would be unacceptable.
Is that, in the Secretary of State's view, consistent with the so-called recognition in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Is it one of the interests of the Irish Republic that he is trying to protect in his proposals?

Mr. Brooke: The text to which I referred in my answer to the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was composed subsequent to the Tuesday when the text to which the hon. Member has referred appeared in the Irish Times. Given that we now have a potential common text which I am putting to the leaders of all the parties and to the Irish Government, I do not think that we shall make a successful outcome more likely by engaging in retrospective argument about what has occurred in the past.

Mr. Dickens: Does my right hon. Friend believe that Her Majesty's Government are putting as much urgency and energy into solving the Northern Ireland question politically and peacefully as they are putting into the search for a solution to the middle east question?

Mr. Brooke: Yes.

Security

Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security of civilians in Northern Ireland.

Dr. Mawhinney: Since I last answered questions, on 14 February, there have been six civilian deaths and two security force deaths arising from the security position. I am sure that the House will endorse the Government's condemnation of the brutal mortar attack outside Armagh on 1 March, which sadly resulted in the deaths of two young UDR soldiers and the maiming of two others; and of the vile attack at Cappagh on 3 March, in which four civilians died.
For the most part, Northern Ireland is a safe place. Sectarian violence—including violence aimed at persons believed to be connected with the security forces—persists, although not at the levels experienced in the 1970s. We are not complacent; we are determined to create the conditions in which all the people of Northern Ireland can live without the threat of terrorist violence.

Mr. Brown: Does the Minister of State understand that, just as Labour Members have condemned the killing of innocent civilians in the Gulf, we also condemn the unnecessary killing of innocent civilians in Northern Ireland? However, to condemn is not enough; we need some sort of political initiative, which we hope will be taken soon and will be successful. In the meantime, do not the working-class communities in the Province deserve better? They deserve protection. I believe that the only way to achieve that—and this may be controversial—is to set up defence squads based on the trade unions—[Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has every right to put his point of view.

Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, should not defence squads be set up, based on the trade unions, with the participation of both Catholic and Protestant workers? Would that not make more sense than more and more people being killed unnecessarily? It may be no panacea, but does the Minister of State agree that at least it should be considered?

Dr. Mawhinney: Probably those who would find that suggestion the most controversial are the trade unions.
I wish to pick up the hon. Gentleman on the use of the words "innocent civilians". Everyone involved within the law in Northern Ireland is innocent—not only the civilians, but the security forces, the UDR and the police. The use of the word "innocent" as an adjective linked with "civilian" does a great disservice to the people of Northern Ireland and to the security forces.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my hon. Friend agree that the security of civilians in Northern Ireland is remarkably good in the circumstances? Will he pay tribute, in that context, to the work of the RUC, the UDR and our armed forces who have operated under great burdens for many years?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Dr. Mawhinney: I agree very much with my hon. and learned Friend. I am sure that the security forces and the RUC will take great heart not only from his comments but from the wide endorsement that those comments were given on both sides of the House.

Jobs

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Government intend to take to safeguard jobs in the first decade of the single European market.

Mr. Needham: The Government are taking a whole range of actions to ensure that Northern Ireland derives economic benefit from the single European market. Industry has responded well to those actions and must continue to exploit the many opportunities that are available.

Mr. McGrady: Is the Under-Secretary aware of a report from Cambridge Economic Consultants, which says that, in its opinion, in the first 10 years of the single European market, 40,000 jobs will be lost in Northern Ireland? Does the hon. Gentleman subscribe to that view, especially as the European Commission has found that the industries


that are endemic in Northern Ireland will be those that will bear most of the brunt? Does he agree that there should be a renewed and reinvigorated drive to obtain inward investment for Northern Ireland as a substitute for the potential job losses post-1991?

Mr. Needham: No, I do not agree with that report. As I said earlier, the Northern Ireland economy is dealing with the downturn very much better than it has dealt with any previous downturn. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is also dealing with it very much better than any other region. We are attracting investment from a whole range of companies and countries precisely because they know that, by coming to Northern Ireland, they will be able to compete in the European market. The Northern Ireland economy in the 1990s has a rosy future, provided that we raise the level of our marketing, training and productivity. That is exactly what we will do.

Mr. Tim Smith: Instead of talking about safeguarding existing jobs in the Province, should not we be a little more positive and talk about the creation of new jobs? Will not the single European market offer good new opportunities for Northern Ireland as an attractive place for investment from outside the Community?

Mr. Needham: I thank my hon. Friend. I am being, and have always been, positive about the Northern Ireland economy. We are attracting very large numbers of new jobs from a large number of countries and a large number of companies. By getting those new jobs, the training, productivity and marketing right, the Northern Ireland economy is, for the first time, showing the way to the rest of the country.

Mr. Stott: Perhaps the Minister might reflect that, just before the advent of the single European market, the seasonally adjusted figures for unemployment in Northern Ireland are understated by roughly 50,000 as a result of the way in which the Government currently calculate the statistics. Does he accept that the true level of unemployment now stands at 20 per cent? Does he regard that as an achievement of 12 years of Conservative rule, given the fact that, in 1979, unemployment in Northern Ireland was 11.3 per cent?

Mr. Needham: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. Unemployment in Northern Ireland at the moment is 13·5 per cent. It is lower this year than it was a year ago, whereas in the rest of the country it was 5·7 per cent., and it is now 7 per cent. The Northern Ireland economy is, I repeat, showing a faster rate of increase than at any time since 1921. I have yet to hear from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) what on earth he would do to the economy of Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Williams: Does the Prime Minister recall saying not so long ago that the poll tax system would be fairer, more acceptable and prove to be enduring? Does he think that he is still clear in his own mind about that?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be a good deal clearer in his mind about the future of the community charge before very long. It is particularly surprising that, some months after the Labour party produced its own roof tax, it is still unable to answer even the most obvious questions about it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend, in paying tribute to the forces in the Gulf, has very often referred to the training that those people had received. Will he assure the House that, in the "Options for Change" review, while we may change where the training is carried out or the number of people being trained, we will certainly ensure that the quality of training, such as that provided in Portland, is not diminished?

The Prime Minister: The quality and nature of training is clearly very important. Whatever may happen as we consider "Options for Change" in future, that will not change.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister think that the Ministers who have been responsible for spending £10 billion of taxpayers' money on the utterly discredited poll tax system should now do the honourable thing and resign?

The Prime Minister: Shadow Ministers responsible for a scheme that they would foist on the country should explain how it would work. The right hon. Gentleman cannot even tell us, months after his scheme was introduced, what the levels would be in his constituency.

Mr. Kinnock: The Government have spent and are continuing to spend vast sums on trying to sustain the poll tax system—including the £400 million to set it up, the £300 million a year on trying to maintain it and the £6 billion in an attempt to sweeten it. Does not the Prime Minister agree that any company or public body responsible for spending so much money so wilfully would have the people responsible on their way to gaol, and rightly so?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the people leading the queue to gaol should be those Labour local authorities which waste more money than anyone else in the country and whose average community charge is £78 higher than that of Conservative authorities.

Mr. Ward: When my right hon. Friend considers with his colleagues the lessons of the Gulf war, will he bear in mind the need for amphibious capability and in particular the need for amphibious craft for the Royal Marines and such services?

The Prime Minister: In the aftermath of the Gulf war, we shall need to consider a number of matters to ensure that our armed forces are up to date and relevant. I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cryer: While the Prime Minister tries to control the warring factions in the Tory party over the poll tax, will he bear in mind the fact that he could bring immediate relief to the millions of people who are groaning under this vicious poll tax—especially those who have been thrown on the dole queue by his economic policies—by restoring Government grants to local authorities to their 1978–79 level under Labour? At the same time, he would get rid of the political corruption that gives an extra £64 a head to Tory-controlled Wandsworth, while low-paid areas like Bradford are left without.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is on shaky ground if he wants to discuss local government, given the attitude of Labour local authorities. If he really wants to see how money is wasted and badly handled, he should go to Lambeth.

Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the principle of accountability, it is long overdue that we should introduce into the House a Question Time for the Leader of the Opposition, so that we could ask what his policies are?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is a matter for the Select Committee on Procedure.

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Wales want not only an early end to the poll tax, but something done about the iniquitous level of water charges? Since privatisation, there has been a 45 per cent. increase in Welsh Water charges, and the average bill of £195 compares to £137 in Severn-Trent, which gets its water from Wales? When will he start an inquiry into the monopoly profiteering in the water industry?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that charges have risen sharply under Welsh Water—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is absurd profiteering."] It is not absurd profiteering but the unprecedented £1·8 billion investment programme which is necessary to improve water and sewerage and bring them up to a standard that the people of Wales would wish to have.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the "buy British goods from Basildon" campaign that was introduced recently by myself and our local European Member of Parliament, Patricia Rawlings? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such local initiatives can make a useful contribution to reducing the trade deficit? Socialist Opposition Members should follow our lead in backing rather than bashing Britain.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, as ever, is very inventive, and I am grateful to him for drawing that campaign to my attention. The key to reducing the trade gap is for British industry to produce goods that people want to buy at competitive prices, which is increasingly the aim of British industry. Many British companies already

do just that, and I hope that more people will buy British. It is time that the Opposition supported British companies and stopped knocking Britain whenever they can.

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Ross: Has the Prime Minister had a chance to study the proposal that Prime Minister Mulroney made for some form of arms control initiative? Before the Prime Minister's meeting with President Bush in Bermuda on Sunday, will he immediately impose a moratorium on arms sales, particularly to the middle east? Will he assure President Bush that the whole country would support an immediate control on the sale and export of arms?

The Prime Minister: We have to look at the export of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons, in particular to the middle east. I expect that we shall take up that matter at the United Nations and elsewhere.

Dr. Twinn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Twinn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the London borough of Haringey has set a community charge £171 higher than neighbouring Conservative Enfield? Does he share the sense of joy of 20,000 of my constituents and of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who heard yesterday that the local Boundary Commission will not transfer four wards into Haringey? Will he join my hon. Friend and me in congratulating our constituents who fought hard with us to stop the daft idea?

The Prime Minister: I am unsurprised to hear from my hon. Friend about the level of charge in Haringey. It is, after all, a Labour authority. Perhaps, if Haringey gets a Conservative authority, it will, as in so many other places, get a far lower charge.

Mr. Fearn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Fearn: Is the Prime Minister aware that the figures for housing waiting lists are now at a crisis level, especially in the north-west? Will he institute a crash building programme in local government which would help local government, the people in need and, indeed, the construction industry, which is on its knees?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know of the estate action programme and the dramatic increase in the funding to many housing associations. I fear that a significant part of the problem is the large number of local authority dwellings that remain unlet with no apparent effort to let them.

Mr. Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at a time when pressure had to be gently exerted on certain Governments to make a financial contribution to the costs of the Gulf operation, the Government and people of


Hong Kong made a donation of £15 million? Will he take this opportunity to express the appreciation of the Government and the House of that gesture?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly grateful for that contribution. I expressed my thanks to the Governor of Hong Kong and the Executive Council some weeks ago.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Which is likely to come first, a substantial fall in unemployment—the figures for which have risen yet again and which the policies pursued when the Prime Minister was Chancellor of the Exchequer helped to create —or the ending of the poll tax, which he justified at every opportunity?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, unemployment rose to 7 per cent. across the United Kingdom in the figures announced today. That is high. It is still well below the European average. It is well below France, at 9 per cent., Italy, at 9·9 per cent., Canada, at 9·3 per cent., Spain, at 15·8 per cent. and Ireland, at 14·8 per cent. If Government policies alone determine the level of unemployment, our record is infinitely better than that of any of those countries.

Mr. Speller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 March.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Speller: Has the Prime Minister had any confirmation that poison gas has been used in Iraq in the past few days? What steps is he taking to see that the capacity for chemical and nuclear warfare is destroyed and that that destruction is permanent?

The Prime Minister: I have no evidence that poison gas has been used, but that is one matter which we shall wish to discuss with our allies in the weeks ahead.

Mr. Hardy: Would the Prime Minister care to compare his Government's treatment of the city of Westminster and of the metropolitan borough of Rotherham? Is he aware that Government support per head to Westminster will be

470-odd per cent. higher than that given to Rotherham? Is he aware that if we had had the same treatment, far from charging a low poll tax, our local authority would be giving everyone at least £250 next year?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the level of support is a good deal higher in inner London boroughs generally, although, as he will know, there is a sharp difference in the level of community charge even between adjacent London boroughs such as Lambeth and Wandsworth.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Prime Minister been made aware of the statement by Jacques Delors in the European Parliament this week, that the Prime Minister had said that the United Kingdom had substantially changed its position on monetary union? Can he confirm whether this is so, or can he tell us what this change is?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that that is not so. I also confirm that I had the opportunity of telling Mr. Delors that over dinner earlier this week.

Dr. Reid: Is the Prime Minister aware that, in about an hour and a half, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry will publish its report on British Steel's closure of the Ravenscraig hot strip mill and Clydesdale? Anyone who listened to the information given to that Committee cannot doubt that the report will be a damning indictment of British Steel's industrial relations policy. Does he recall telling me about three months ago, in a meeting that he was kind enough to have with me, that, should the worst come to Lanarkshire, he would not stand idly by? Since then, another 3,000 workers have been told that they will have to stand idly by, having been made redundant. Can he now tell the people of Lanarkshire what he intends to do, or does he find the same difficulty in making up his mind on that issue as he does on the poll tax?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows precisely what we propose to do. If he racks his brains, he will recall that I told him when we met some time ago. I made it clear to him at our meeting that the Lanarkshire working group had been established now to identify what measures might be needed at some future stage if the mill were to close. That remains the case, as the hon. Gentleman has known for some time.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 MARCH—Second Reading of the War Crimes Bill.
Motions on the membership of Select Committees.
TUESDAY 19 MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 20 MARCH and THURSDAY 21 MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.
FRIDAY 22 MARCH—Private Members' Bills
MONDAY 25 MARCH—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget statement.
Mr. Speaker, the House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee A will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 20 March to consider European Community Document No. 10541/90 relating to the common fisheries policy; and European Standing Committee B will meet on the same day at 10.30 am to consider European Community Documents Nos. 8073/90, 8792/90, 4112/91 and 8075/90 relating to Community social matters.

[European Standing Committee A

Wednesday 20 March

Relevant European Community Document

10541/90 Common Fisheries Policy

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee

HC 29-xiii ( 1990–91).

European Standing Committee B

Wednesday 20 March

Relevant European Community Documents


(a) 8073/90
Regulation of Hours of Work


(b) 8792/90 
Employment of Pregnant Women and Recent Mothers


(c) 4112/91
Employment of Pregnant Women and Recent Mothers


(d) 8075/90 
Minimum Safety and Health Requirements for Temporary and Mobile Work Sites

Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-i (1990–91)
(b) HC 29-ii (1990–91)
(c) HC 29-xii (1990–91)
(d) HC 29-ii ( 1990–91)].

Dr. Cunningham: Is it not the clearest indictment of the Government's economic and industrial policy failures that unemployment has again exceeded 2 million? Is it not a shocking disgrace that, for the second time in a decade, the Government have forced our economy into such a deep and damaging recession? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when we debate the Budget next

week, the Secretary of State for Employment will be at the Dispatch Box to answer for those absymal failures of the Government's term in office?
Why has the Leader of the House still not found time for us to continue our consideration of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill? What have thousands of teachers done to cause the Government to fail to continue consideration of the measure, which is important for teachers and for the future of our children's education? Why is not the Leader of the House candid about the ever-increasing delay? It is now more than six weeks since the Bill left Committee. When will the House have the opportunity to find out what is in the Government's mind?
Can we have time next week for a statement on the Government's intentions to privatise electricity in Northern Ireland? There will be considerable interest among all hon. Members in that important and controversial measure.
I support the request that has already been made that we have a debate at the earliest possible opportunity on the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which covers the crucial issue of steel in Scotland and the importance of Ravenscraig and other steel plants for the economy and for employment in Scotland. Scottish Members could then call the Government to account for their continuing failure seriously to address the damage to the Scottish economy which results from Government policies and from the policies of British Steel.
It is widely reported in the press today that there have been heavy briefings from Downing street on the Government's intentions with respect to the future of the poll tax. Is it not essential that, if the Government have made a decision, it is announced in the House? If the decision is, as it should be, to abolish the tax, will not the Leader of the House find time to take up the offer made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) for the Opposition to co-operate with the Government immediately in a Bill to abolish the poll tax and to replace it with a property tax? Whatever the decision, is it not time that not only Parliament but the country saw an end to all the flarching and callifuggling about the future of the poll tax, and that we had some honest answers from Ministers—including the Prime Minister—about their intentions?
Has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on the shameful and contemptible behaviour of Tory Members in yesterday's debate on the abolition of the poll tax? They attempted to wreck the speech—[Interruption.—some of them are here now and are attempting to wreck my question—of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham.
Has the Leader of the House seen that the Official Report shows that there were 16 bogus points of order from Conservative Members? Conservative Members defied the ruling of the Chair nine times and persisted in trying to interrupt when it was clear that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham was not giving way. Mr. Deputy Speaker ruled 18 times that Tory Members were making or trying to make spurious and bogus points of order. There were 11 occasions on which Mr. Deputy Speaker had to intervene and call for order, and 12 other instances when Hansard recorded interruptions, all from Conservative Members. Will the Leader of the House find time soon for a debate on that boorish, loutish and unacceptable behaviour?

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Hon. Members: Give way.

Dr. Cunningham: I will not give way. It is indicative of the guilt of hon. Members that they do not want the record to be put straight—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This takes a lot of time.

Dr. Cunningham: Does not the Leader of the House recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham deserves and is entitled to an apology on the record from the Leader of the House? Will he ensure that we can have discussions through the usual channels next week? We are not prepared to tolerate such behaviour again, in the interests not only of fair debate, but of the good name of Parliament, about which his hon. Friends seem to care little. If he does not arrange these things, the Government may find that they have great difficulty because we shall use—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. We shall deploy the legitimate procedures of the House to give the Government a taste of their own medicine.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has referred to unemployment. He will know that the number of people in employment in this country hs been rising for seven years, and has increased by more than 3·3 million since March 1983. Indeed, there are now nearly 27 million jobs in the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago, the United Kingdom's unemployment rate is lower than the European average and lower than the rates in a considerable number of countries in the Community. It will of course be possible to discuss these matters next week, during the debate on the Budget statement. I expect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will take part in that debate.
The hon. Gentleman will realise that there will be no opportunity next week to discuss the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Bill. With regard to the Budget, we shall be following normal practice. The hon. Gentleman will have to be patient.
I hope that it will be possible to make some comment before too long about the privatisation of the electricity industry in Northern Ireland.
With regard to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that it will be possible to discuss trade and industry matters fully during the Budget debate.
Hon. Members will know that, this morning, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister chaired a meeting of ministerial colleagues on the question of the community charge. He will chair a further meeting next week, and the Committee's conclusions will then have to go to the full Cabinet. After that, we shall announce our proposals.
In the context of the Opposition's position on the community charge, the hon. Gentleman mentioned yesterday's debate. He suggested that the Opposition would be willing to co-operate if their proposals were incorporated in a Bill. He will have noted that the Opposition's motion yesterday was resoundingly defeated —defeated by a majority of 142. So much for the Opposition's great attempt to push their proposals. So much, indeed, for the Opposition's faith in their own proposals. Clearly, they were unable to get a large number of their Members to come and support them.
The hon. Gentleman described the behaviour of some Conservative Members yesterday as shameful. The

pressure from my hon. Friends was caused by the fact that, despite many attempts, they were getting from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen no answers with regard to the details of the Opposition's policies. I hope that, the next time these matters are debated, we shall get answers. That will be the way to make progress. That said, I have to add that I am always prepared to discuss any issue that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise with me through the usual channels.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I should like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 500, which concerns the Merchant Navy.
[That this House welcomes the recent report of the Joint Working Party on British shipping published in September 1990; notes the vital importance of Britain's merchant fleet for the economy, employment and our strategic defences; recognises the links with regard to economic activity and maritime skills, between the merchant fleet and the marine related industries; notes that British shipping and those marine related industries together contribute some —5 billion a year to the country's invisibles; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and positive action to first ensure that the British fleet is strengthened by appropriate stimulation of investment in modern tonnage and second encourage the recruitment, training and employment of British seafarers.]
That motion has now been signed by a majority of the Members of this House, including 66 per cent. of those Conservatives who are eligible to sign. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that we have a debate on this subject, and will he agree to bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are actively following up the recommendations in the joint working party report. These deal, among other things, with recruitment and training. As I said on another occasion, assistance with the costs of training Merchant Navy officer cadets is already provided under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. With regard to financial assistance, as my hon. Friend has indicated, the General Council of British Shipping and others have made submissions to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend will realise why I cannot make any comment on that.

Mr. David Trimble: I should like the Leader of the House to give consideration to certain proposed Orders in Council that were published recently. Although I have them here, I do not intend to read or paraphrase from them. As can be seen, they are quite substantial documents. I understand that there is provision for consultation up to September, after which the orders will be brought before the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues with a view to arranging a longer consultation period—perhaps into 1992—to enable the interested parties to digest the material and to respond? Will he also do something to see that all this detailed material is dealt with in such a way that hon. Members can debate it thoroughly and table amendments?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall have to look into the points that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for us to have a statement shortly on


the role of the district auditor, with particular reference to Derbyshire county council? Is he aware that the council has been sitting on a report from the district auditor on the management of its pension fund for nearly nine months, mainly, we believe, because that report contains details of highly irresponsible and even illegal behaviour? At the moment, only the council has the power to publish that report and there seems to be no way in which anybody can force it to do so. Will my right hon. Friend look into that scandal as a matter of great urgency?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friends. I shall be coming to Derbyshire on Sunday and Monday this coming week, when I shall be happy to hear from my hon. Friend about the issues that she has raised before I do so.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If it cannot be done by Ministers from the Department of the Environment replying to tomorrow's debate on the ecology of the Gulf, will the Leader of the House arrange for a full explanation to be given to the House of Commons next week of exactly what happened before the bombing on the road to Basra? Either it was justified, in which case the House of Commons would listen to a justification, or it was thoroughly unjustified, killing thousands of people, many of whom were from the Indian subcontinent and contract workers, and creating a feeling in the Arab world that it was terribly unnecessary slaughter. One way or the other, the House of Commons should have an explanation.

Mr. MacGregor: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a debate on important matters in relation to the environment tomorrow, to which a Minister will be responding. I cannot promise him a debate next week on the other point that he has raised.

Mr. David Sumberg: May I support the plea by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) for a debate on what took place in the House yesterday during the poll tax debate, because that will give the Conservative Members an opportunity to point out that, since 1983, the proceedings of the House have been suspended on more than 10 occasions due to the antics of Labour Members of Parliament? That will give Conservative Members the chance to give the players' benefit to those who did the work during the years preceding yesterday.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made the point already.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Leader of the House tell us rather more about how the Government intend to respond to the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry into the Scottish steel industry? As he will be aware, British Steel is in the process of closing down the Scottish steel industry, and any action that is to be taken on the Select Committee's recommendations will have to be rapid.
What assurance can we have that the Select Committee's report will not be allowed to gather dust in the Department of Trade and Industry while the Scottish steelworkers are put on the dole? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made, perhaps this evening, or at the very least guarantee that the

Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in responding to the Budget debate next week, will be in a position to answer, point by point, the Select Committee's remarks and recommendations?

Mr. MacGregor: Clearly there cannot be a statement this evening. It never has been the practice to respond instantly to a Select Committee report. I understand that it is a fairly lengthy report, and the Government must have time to consider it. The Government will be responding to the report in the usual way and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a time scale for the Government's response.

Mr. Michael Brown: If the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) were here a little more often——

Dr. Cunningham: I was called to the Chair by the Home Secretary.

Mr. Brown: I apologise.
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for 21 years. When discussions between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House take place through the usual channels, will my right hon. Friend have available to him the document that is in the Library, which shows the number of suspensions of hon. Members by the Chair during the past 10 years? Will he remind the hon. Gentleman that, since the 1979–80 Session, when I came into the House, there have been about 13 suspensions, all of them of Labour Members.
Will my right hon. Friend remind the hon. Gentleman of the way in which some Opposition Members behaved when I sponsored a Private bill through all its stages? You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that, apart from one speech which lasted six minutes, I was never heard in the House, and all the disruptions came from Opposition Members. Will my right hon. Friend suggest that, from time to time during the 21 years that he has been in the House the hon. Gentleman should have come into the Chamber to see some of the antics of his hon. Friends?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly, and I can well understand his frustration. The figures that he quotes make their own point.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on local government, so that I can ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to visit the London borough of Hackney, the poorest borough in the country, to see its problems for himself and, above all, so that he can congratulate the leadership of Hackney council on lowering Hackney's poll tax, in the face of enormous difficulties and social problems?

Mr. MacGregor: We have had a number of debates on local government, and I am sure that we will have many more.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: In relation to Monday's business, may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 595?
[That this House recognises that many who voted to avoid the alteration of even a word or a comma in the War Crimes Bill did so with a heavy heart, and wonders why the Labour Party suspended its usual critical judgment of the Government.]
May I also draw my right hon. Friend's attention to his remarks on 6 December in column 463 and to questions 50 and 51, which I hope he will be able to answer tomorrow? What has changed since last year, when the Government seemed to exclude any prospect of the House changing a word or comma of the War Crimes Bill? Is there any way in which the House can decide that the Parliament Acts should not come into effect?

Mr. MacGregor: I have seen early-day motion 595. We debated the procedure motion on Monday evening. All things considered, the procedure that we are following is the best way to proceed, and that view was endorsed by a clear majority of hon. Members on Monday evening. Both Houses can still express their view on the Bill.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: May I also draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 500?
[That this House welcomes the recent report of the Joint Working Party on British shipping published in September 1990; notes the vital importance of Britain's merchant fleet for the economy, employment and our strategic defences; recognises the links with regard to economic activity and maritime skills, between the merchant fleet and the marine related industries; notes that British shipping and those marine related industries together contribute some £5 billion a year to the country's invisibles; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take immediate and positive action to first ensure that the British fleet is strengthened by appropriate stimulation of investment in modern tonnage and second encourage the recruitment, training and employment of British seafarers.]
Hon. Members who signed it will be disappointed by the right hon. Gentleman's response. Is it not time that the Government accepted that since they took office the decline of the merchant fleet has been the worst on record? They have a clear responsibility to respond to the widespread concern that has been expressed about the British merchant fleet. Only Government intervention will revive the fleet, the shipyards and the work related to them.

Mr. MacGregor: I have made clear the Government's response to some of the points that have been made on the merchant fleet, particularly on training. I am aware that other points are being made about financial and tax matters. It is not appropriate for me to say anything about that today.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the publication of the interim report of W. S. Atkins on the channel tunnel rail link has been widely welcomed? However, it raises matters of considerable complexity, not least whether the views and legislation of the European Commission on railway lines are being observed. Given the complexity of the issues, will he give us a chance to debate the parameters within which the consultants will be allowed to discuss this matter?

Mr. MacGregor: I recognise the importance of this matter, particularly to my hon. Friend's constituents, but I cannot promise a debate before the Easter recess. The House must consider many matters in the coming weeks, but I shall bear my hon. Friend's request in mind.

Mr. Tim Smith: In calling for a debate on parliamentary behaviour, is not the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) guilty of applying the most

grotesque double standards? As recently as 29 January, in a debate on the rate support grant for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett), now the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, made a seven-minute speech in which he was interrupted no fewer than five times by bogus points of orders and by other interruptions.

Mr. MacGregor: Points of order are used on both sides of the House when Members of Parliament wish to express points of view or to pursue a particular matter. That is why I said yesterday that much of the frustration felt by my hon. Friends was due to the fact that they were not getting answers to the questions that they had raised.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on the press? Has he seen a letter in The Star newspaper this morning asking Members of Parliament to support the closure of Sellafield? Has he also seen the centre page spread in The Star on Tuesday of this week that suggested that British Nuclear Fuels plc had backed off from the Press Council over complaints? Does the Leader of the House know that The Star editors did not include in that article the fact that they had been given a sound drubbing and beating by the Press Council only a year and a half ago when I complained to the Press Council over The Star's bad and inaccurate reporting of matters relating to the nuclear industry? Ought we not to be debating those matters in Parliament? That newspaper is getting totally out of hand, and does not realise what damage it is doing.

Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen either the letter or the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers, so I cannot comment upon them. As for the general issue, I cannot promise a debate in Government time in the immediate future, or for some time to come, due to the pressure on parliamentary time. However, the hon. Gentleman has recourse to various courses of action. He obviously feels strongly about the point, so no doubt he will do that, through the appropriate authorities. He can also use the devices of the House to raise the matter in other ways.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate about the importance of the Government's response to the Select Committee's report on Ravenscraig, which is to be published later today? Does he not appreciate that the rundown of the Scottish steel industry will lead to the loss of thousands of jobs in central Scotland, that it will severely damage our industrial infrastructure, including the railways system and the basic infrastructure of central Scotland, and that, above all, it will close down certain options for future industrial developments by industries that use steel? Does he not recognise that we are talking about the future of Scotland as an industrial nation? That is why we must have clear Government action in response to the report and a debate on what they intend to do about it.

Mr. MacGregor: Job losses are of course unwelcome. The Government will continue to encourage British Steel seriously to consider any commercially viable opportunities involving its Scottish plants and any commercial offers for the assets. These decisions were taken on commercial considerations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Lanarkshire working group is identifying the main constraints to revitalising Lanarkshire's economy


and will be recommending measures to resolve the problems. The restructuring of the local economy is very much in the Government's mind.
It is difficult for me to comment on the Select Committee's report, since it has not yet been published, but the Government intend to respond to it in the normal way. I repeat that it is possible to raise all economic and industrial matters next week and in the following Monday's debate on the Budget. Moreover, there will be an opportunity to raise them when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry speaks on trade and industry matters.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: I join the shadow Leader of the House in urging my right hon. Friend to have a debate as soon as possible on standards of behaviour in the House, so that Conservative Members can point out that, far from being a bunch of coy little political virgins—goody-goodies and teacher's pets—the type of personal abuse that Opposition Members heaped upon our former Prime Minister far exceeded anything that has ever emanated from this side of the House? It would also provide us with the opportunity to point out that nothing was required from this side of the House to ruin the speech made yesterday by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould).

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point. I would only add that Conservative Members have frequently been subjected to running commentaries from quite a number of Opposition Members for a long time, which have often come from a sedentary position, and we have not complained about that.

Mr. Max Madden: The Leader of the House will know of the intense concern of many about the fate of the British hostages and other hostages in the Lebanon. Will he arrange for the Minister of State, Foreign Office to make an early statement when he returns from his meetings with the Syrians and others?
While he is at it, will my hon. Friend have an urgent word with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and ask them to reconsider their refusal to meet the spiritual leader of Tibet, who is visiting Britain next week? It is a disgrace that the only Cabinet Minister permitted to meet the Dalai Lama is the Lord Chancellor, who has been told not to say anything to him. Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that the Chinese will treat the British Government and others with nothing but contempt if they show weakness? Will he urge the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary to hold the proper discussions with the Dalai Lama next week, so that the fate of Tibet can be properly understood and considered by the British Government?

Mr. MacGregor: The Government remain concerned about the hostages, and are actively pursuing all their cases. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about a possible way of reporting to the House on any developments that take place. The Government wholly share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the matter.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question, we are following a practice established for some time when the Dalai Lama has visited this country. There is clearly a distinction between his role as spiritual leader, which is

widely recognised, and direct official relationships. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Dalai Lama is due to meet many people when he comes here next week.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the Leader of the House take note of my support of the request by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for a debate on the campaign being waged by The Star against British Nuclear Fuels plc at Cumbria? The article contains great distortions. I have been to Japan to see the fast breeder reactor to which the nuclear waste will be returned for fuel. This scare article may cost jobs and alarm the local inhabitants in Cumbria, and we should debate the matter on the Floor of the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I repeat that I have not had the opportunity to read the reports, so it is difficult for me to comment, but I have said that there are other ways of pursuing the matter on the Floor of the House and outside. No doubt my hon. Friend will want for once to strike up an alliance with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) in that respect.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's earlier reply, in which he said that he hoped for an announcement in the near future on Northern Ireland Electricity. Did he mean a statement about Government policy or a statement about the procedure in this House for dealing with proposals on the future of Northern Ireland Electricity? Does he recognise that there will be outrage throughout Northern Ireland if any attempt is made to push through an Order in Council to privatise Northern Ireland Electricity without the right of parliamentary debate or the right to table amendments? Does he accept that that is yet another example of an issue that should be referred for proper discussion to a Select Committee on Northern Ireland?

Mr. MacGregor: The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the statement, which I said I hoped would be made in the House before long.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In respect of a possible statement on the abolition of the poll tax next week, will the Leader of the House give us a guarantee of a separate statement on Scotland? Is he aware that the Scottish legislation differs in many respects from that for England and Wales? It has been on the statute book a year longer and been inflicted on the people of Scotland a year longer.
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, in the second vote last night, three of the four Scottish Office Ministers—the Minister of State and two Under-Secretaries—declined to support the Government's review proposals? The surprise today is that they are still in their jobs; but Scotland's case is different, and we want an assurance of a separate statement.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman should not draw any significance from the voting list last night for the second Division. I should make it clear that I did not mention any precise time for a statement. I cannot say yet in what form the statement will take place or how it will be announced. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the position in Scotland.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to read in Hansard of


the changes to Standing Orders for private business? If the right hon. Gentleman has read the report, he will have noted that Hansard records that all the proposed new Standing Orders were ordered to be passed. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the Vote and Proceedings, however, he will find that it is recorded that the Standing Order dealing with environmental assessment was not passed. I understand that my hon. Friends objected to that Standing Order because they wanted to ensure that there would be a debate on the issue and not because they were against it in principle. It is extremely unfortunate that the first measure was not agreed to and that the others were agreed to, and the position should be rectified at the earliest opportunity. Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange for us to have an early debate on the reform of private business?

Mr. MacGregor: We cannot amend votes that have already taken place. I shall check what, as I understood it, seemed to be a disparity in the reporting of what happened yesterday. From the reports that I received, I understood that it was the environmental assessment Standing Order to which there was objection. That measure may have to be debated unless the block is removed.
I am aware of the great interest that the hon. Gentleman takes in private Bill procedure. He will be aware that we have placed on the Order Paper the proposals that have emanated from the Chairman of Ways and Means for making changes to our procedures as they relate to private Bills, to be operative from the next Session. We have been considering the responses i o the consultation document from the Department of Transport, and these would involve legislation changes to our private Bill procedure. I hope that before long the Government will come forward with their response to the responses to the consultation document. That is the moment at which we might consider how we debate private Bill procedure in the House.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the gathering of hon. Members in the Chamber means that there will be a statement shortly on the Birmingham Six, so that we can celebrate the ending of the outrageous injustice that these people have suffered?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has received and seen the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, which was published yesterday? I do not expect a debate or a statement on the report next week, but will he assure the House that he will not try to push it to one side but will give it urgent consideration and bring it before the House, along with the necessary changes to Standing Orders that are recommended in the report, so that the private interests of the Chairmen and members of Select Committees, who he will accept perform an important function in the House, are brought under proper scrutiny and control, not only for ourselves but for those outside who expect decent standards of conduct in public life?

Mr. MacGregor: I can confirm that there will be a statement shortly on the Birmingham Six. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House to have the statement, but the court's decision was announced only at 3.30 pm. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement as quickly as that is convenient to the House.
I have seen the report of the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I have not had time to study it in full, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it will have my consideration.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Now that the Home Secretary has arrived in the Chamber—my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is present and will respond adequately to the statement for the Opposition—I ask the Leader of the House to have urgent consultations with the Home Secretary, after the statement, about rearranging next week's business so as to allow some Government time to debate the lessons and consequences of the release of the Birmingham Six—not least so that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is not in his place, can be rightly given due credit for the pivotal role which he has played in the past few years inmaking today's decision possible, and so that The Sun can make an apology to him for having described him and others among us, who have also championed the Birmingham Six, as looney Members.
Perhaps Irish families in my constituency and throughout the midlands can take comfort from the fact that there will be compensation. Most important is the need to stop now the passage through Parliament of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill—the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 arose from the arrest of the Birmingham Six—to ensure that this never happens again.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman had better await the statement. In so far as he has raised anything for me on business, there is no chance of rearranging the business for next week. That business is clearly related to the War Crimes Bill and, most importantly, to the Budget, which takes up most of the week.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the Leader of the House replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), who asked for a statement on the poll tax, he referred gloatingly to the majority of 142 yesterday. Does he recall that those 142 included the Liberals, Democrats or whatever they call themselves—the salads—who voted against a motion calling for the abolition of the poll tax only a few days after they had scored their victory in Ribble Valley? Bearing that in mind, does the Leader of the House understand that, although there may be many Tories with different answers to the poll tax problem, there is only one party prepared to abolish it—the Labour party?

Mr. MacGregor: That question is not directed at me. All I know is that the majority yesterday was clear and resounding.

Mr. James Wallace: Following that question—I am not sure what relation it had to business—will the Leader of the House accept that those of my party who voted against the Labour motion voted against a hamfisted proposal and that— —

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that has anything to do with the business for next week.

Birmingham Six

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Government's response to the decision earlier this afternoon by the Court of Appeal to quash the convictions for murder of Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Hill, Robert Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker, arising from the two bomb explosions in public houses in Birmingham in November 1974. A similar statement is being made by the Lord Chancellor in another place. We will arrange for copies of the Court's judgment to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as it is available.
The case, together with others which have occurred, raises a number of serious issues which must be a cause of concern to us all. It is of fundamental importance that the arrangements for criminal justice should secure the speedy conviction of the guilty and the acquittal of the innocent. When that is not achieved, public confidence is undermined.
Under the provisions of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, any person whose conviction has been quashed on the basis of a new or newly discovered fact following a reference by me of the case to the Court of Appeal is entitled to apply to me for compensation. The amount will be decided on the basis of advice from an independent assessor. I will, of course, give careful consideration to any application that is made to me by the six men.
We fully recognise the seriousness of the issues raised by those cases, and the Government are resolved to ensure that they are properly addressed. However, it is important to recognise that the Government have already taken a wide variety of measures that ensure the conviction of those who have committed criminal offences and protect innocent suspects. They include the codification of police powers to investigate crime; controls over police interrogations, including the tape-recording of interviews; the reform of the law of evidence as it affects confessions; the setting up of the Crown prosecution service and the Serious Fraud Office; extension of the Court of Appeal's power to order retrials; and improved quality controls over forensic science work.
Many of the cases that have given cause for concern predate those developments. My predecessors and I have demonstrated our willingness to look hard and seriously at any evidence presented to us about alleged miscarriages of justice, and our readiness when necessary to refer that evidence to the Court of Appeal.
Our criminal justice system deals perfectly well with the overwhelming majority of cases. That should never be forgotten. The cases that are now the cause of our concern represent only a tiny proportion of the work that is carried out to very high standards. I would wish that to be clearly understood, so that we do not get carried away with the quite erroneous belief that everything in our current arrangements is flawed. We believe, however, that it is now necessary to undertake a review of the criminal justice process as it at present stands, taking full account of recent reforms. The aim of such a review will be to minimise so far as possible the likelihood of such events happening again.
The review will embrace all stages of the criminal process. It will consider the investigation and pre-trial stages. That will include the management of the investigation by the police and the role of the prosecutor. It will include also the role of expert witnesses and, in particular, that of forensic scientists and the reliability of scientific evidence. It will review the place of the right to silence in criminal proceedings. It will consider a possible role for investigating magistrates, the conduct of criminal trials, and the duties and powers of the courts.
In addition, the review will examine appeals procedures, the powers of the Court of Appeal, and the investigation of alleged miscarriages of justice once appeal rights have been exhausted—including the functions at present carried out by the Home Secretary.
The review, extending as it does over the work of the criminal courts in England and Wales, is of such importance that we believe that it should be undertaken by a royal commission. Her Majesty has accepted that recommendation. We have placed a copy of its terms of reference in the Libraries of both Houses. Her Majesty has approved the appointment of Lord Runciman of Doxford to be chairman of the royal commission. We shall announce the names of the other members as soon as possible.
The Government's decision to establish a royal commission is an indication of the importance that we attach to the work of the review. It is our intention that it should be wide ranging and thorough. It must also be carried out as soon as possible. We have, therefore, asked its chairman to make every effort to complete the commission's work within two years.
The House will, of course, be aware that in October 1989, Sir John May was appointed to inquire into the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the Guildford Four and the Maguires. In July 1990, he submitted an interim report, which led my predecessor to refer the convictions of the Maguires to the Court of Appeal. The court has yet to hear the case, and I would not wish to make any further comment on it while it remains sub judice.
We have asked Sir John May to complete his very important inquiry into the Guildford Four and Maguires cases. The appointment of the wider inquiry that I have announced today is not intended to inhibit him in any way. We think it right, however, to ask him to concentrate his inquiry on the circumstances of the cases themselves, and to contribute his views on the wider issues to the royal commission, of which he has agreed to be a member.
All of us in the House must be disturbed by what has occurred. The objectives of the criminal justice system must always be to ensure that those who commit criminal offences are brought to justice, that the guilty are punished, and that the innocent—including those wrongly charged with offences—are protected. Valuable reforms have already been introduced in recent years. I believe that our present arrangements work well in the overwhelming majority of cases, and I pay tribute to all those who endeavour to achieve that.
The time is right, nevertheless, to take a fresh look at the existing arrangements, to see whether further improvements can be made—and that is why the Government have decided to establish this royal commission.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The first emotion that we must all feel today is relief, that so grotesque a miscarriage of justice has at last been righted. The second is anger that it ever happened at all—and that it was allowed to continue for so long. The third must be determination that it never happens again.
I express my admiration for all those—principally, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—who fought so long and so bravely to see justice done. Without them, the six men would still be in prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South in particular has been subjected to much vilification. He is entitled to many apologies from both inside the House and outside it, not least from previous Home Secretaries—although I doubt whether he will receive them.
Although it is important to emphasise today that most police officers act honourably, and that our judiciary are generally perceptive and fair-minded, the case of the Birmingham Six, following that of the Guildford detainees, has done much to damage the reputation of British justice. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is essential that that damage is repaired as quickly as possible?
As I understand the Home Secretary's statement, the May inquiry will continue to examine the wrongful convictions in the Guildford cases. Am I right to conclude—although I hope that I am wrong—that such an immediate and urgent inquiry will not be made into the Birmingham convictions?
The Home Secretary talks about the May inquiry's efforts being concentrated on the cases already in hand. Someone must make an urgent investigation, not simply into the principles of British justice—important though that is—but into the reasons why these six men were wrongfully convicted. I hope that he shares my view that, as well as an immediate public inquiry into the causes of this tragedy, those who may be responsible for any breaches of the law which resulted in this miscarriage of justice ought to be speedily brought to trial. I do not believe that a royal commission will have that effect and produce that end.
Does the Home Secretary also share my view that, as well as demonstrating the likelihood of a number of malpractices in the preparation of the evidence, today's decision illustrates fundamental weaknesses in our judicial system? They were vividly illustrated by the judgments in the Court of Appeal in 1987—especially well illustrated by the comments by the Lord Chief Justice during and at the end of that case. The comments made then are now proved to be categorically wrong, and the Home Secretary is wholly wrong if he is suggesting today that recent changes in the criminal law will automatically avoid the recurrence of such a tragedy.
For example, arrests made in similar circumstances to those of the Birmingham Six would not attract the protection provided under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I regret that in his statement the Home Secretary implied that they would.
I warn the Home Secretary of the dangers of postponing improvements in the judicial system for the length of time inherent in a report by a royal commission. A royal commission would take years to report and even more years would pass before its decision could be implemented.
It is the view of everyone who has examined the matter that the Government ought to take action now, for it is

generally accepted that the problem was intensified and prolonged by the process of judges passing judgments on other judges. We now need some sort of independent view on appeals in contentious cases. We need an appeals system for such cases which includes some laymen who can make an objective judgment on how the criminal system and the lawyers and judges behave.
Let me urge the Home Secretary to introduce immediate legislation to set up such an independent appeals system. I promise him that, were he to do so, he would have the support of the Opposition in passing such legislation at the first opportunity. We need something which improves and rehabilitates the criminal justice system immediately, not in five, six or eight years' time.
Too often, royal commissions have been used to postpone action rather than to facilitate it. I urge the Home Secretary to act far more speedily than his suggestion today implies.

Mr. Baker: I thank the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for his generally helpful response to my statement.
On the question of a further inquiry into the Birmingham Six case, I believe that the essential facts of the case have now been fully established in the Court of Appeal. I do not see a need for any further inquiry. It is not for me to decide, but I understand that necessary inquiries are well advanced. At the request of the chief constable of the West Midlands, the Devon and Cornwall constabulary are already investigating the question of criminal or disciplinary misconduct by officers involved in the original investigation. The question of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings will have to be considered in the light of the report of that investigation.
The right hon. Gentleman hopes that the royal commission will report in a short time. I have said that it will do so within two years, and I very much hope that it might be within that time because I agree that certain changes have to be made. From the wide-ranging terms of reference of the royal commission, he will know that it will cover such matters as
the conduct of police investigations and their supervision by senior police officers, in particular the degree of control that is exercised by those officers over the conduct of the investigation and the gathering and preparation of evidence".
It will also deal with
the role of the prosecutor in supervising the gathering of evidence…the role of experts in criminal proceedings…the arrangements for the defence of accused persons, access to legal advice".
and the access of the defence to forensic evidence and forensic advice.
The final point made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was an important one, on which I do not think the two sides of the House differ. We need to examine the whole system of looking into miscarriages of justice after the normal processes of law have been exhausted. It is generally agreed that the present system, whereby I refer a case to the Court of Appeal for reconsideration, is not satisfactory. The terms of reference speak of
The role of the Court of Appeal in considering new evidence on appeal, including directing the investigation of allegations".
The right hon. Member referred to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The Act has changed, for example, the way in which confessions must be signed by the person who has been arrested in the police cell. Other protections


have also been introduced: for instance, the handling of forensic evidence has changed substantially since the 1970s. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is in all our interests for the royal commission to examine all those matters.

Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is of the greatest importance for the public as a whole to have confidence in the criminal justice system and process? His announcement of a wide-ranging inquiry by a royal commission into court procedure and the investigation and preparation of cases will satisfy many of the concerns that are felt.
Does my right hon. Friend also agree that the cases that gave rise to this afternoon's statement date from 17 years ago, since when the procedures for the investigation and recording of evidence—as well as the Crown prosecution service and the forensic science services—have changed beyond all recognition? Have not they become dramatically different? Finally, does he agree that the experimental tape recording of interviews under the prevention of terrorism Act is a welcome development?

Mr. Baker: I agree that practices have changed substantially since the inquiries were undertaken in 1974 and 1975. I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises that. I confirm that two experiments with the taping of evidence in terrorist cases are now taking place, in London and Liverpool.
The terms of the royal commission are wide enough for the commission to re-examine those matters and to look at all the procedures. It can examine virtually everything, from the arrest of a suspect to the final examination—in a different Appeal Court from the one now being used, until these matters have been dealt with. I am sure that the commission will use the considerable scope with which we have provided it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does not the Home Secretary feel very uneasy about the length of time that it has taken to put right what has been recognised for many years as a palpable wrong? Many opportunities have been provided for that injustice to be redressed. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel a deep-seated unease about the fact that the system of justice has proved unequal to redressing the wrong that has undoubtedly been done?
Will the Home Secretary take it from me, as someone who has prosecuted and, indeed, defended the perpetrators of serious crime in the High Court in Scotland, that the issue of so-called "confessions" in police custody is by no means new, and no less controversial even as a result of the statutory improvements to which he has referred? That will remain a weakness in our criminal system, both north and south of the border, until arrangements are in place to make it impossible for confessions to be fabricated, or for coercion—physical or otherwise—to be employed to ensure that such confessions are produced by people who the police have decided are guilty, albeit in the absence of evidence to prove it.

Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the time taken to resolve this matter gives rise to concern. It has been a long process which has ended only this afternoon, with an appeal hearing in 1987–88 as

well; but it was the appearance of fresh evidence very late in the day, substantially forensic evidence, which led the Court of Appeal to quash the convictions today.
On the question of confessions, things have changed since the time when the investigations were carried out into the Birmingham Six. Now, a contemporaneous written record is made of any confession and signed by the arrested man, which was not so in this particular case. Other changes have been made: now, when someone is arrested, he is brought before a custody sergeant who authorises the detention; he must also consider whether a doctor should be called, and things of that sort. Considerable changes have been made.
The royal commission has the power to consider all these matters, and I have no doubt that it will also go into them again.

Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be wholly wrong for the British public to form the wrong impression from what has happened today about the conduct of our police and our courts? Does he agree with me that the way in which the police have responded to the implementation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the introduction of the Crown prosecution service shows their desire to co-operate in the improvement of the criminal justice system?
Although it would be wrong to prejudge anything that the royal commission may recommend, can my right hon. Friend tell the House that the Government will implement its findings as speedily as possible?

Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is generally agreed that these cases are exceptional, although that does not make them any the less serious and I do not want to give any appearance of complacency. These are serious matters and it is important that they be investigated in the way that they will be. The serious way in which the Government have taken this matter is reflected in the fact that we are appointing a royal commission.
PACE has made considerable changes in the actual handling and investigation of cases of this kind. Changes have been made. The various elements of the criminal justice system have co-operated with those changes. Once again, I recognise that they should be reconsidered, and that is what the royal commission is doing. I confirm to my hon. Friend that in the overwhelming majority of cases British justice works very well: a fair hearing is given and the guilty are found guilty and the innocent found innocent.
My hon. Friend asked me whether I would undertake to implement all the recommendations of the royal commission. I cannot give such a blanket undertaking; I will have to consider what the commission says. I would, however, point out to my hon. Friend that the commission will cover some matters on which there will have to be changes, and legislative changes at that. I am quite sure that a major reform Bill will flow from the work of the royal commission.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Home Secretary agree that no compensation will ever make up to these men and their families for 17 years in prison when they were innocent? The other side of that is that, because the system would not face up to the error that it had made, the men who did this terrible bombing—the


worst mass murder in British history prior to Lockerbie —went scot-free. Will there be a new police investigation to try to get them?
Is the Home Secretary not big enough to respond to the invitation by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to apologise on behalf of many members of his party for the smearing of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who has done a fine job in helping our system to reach justice at last?

Mr. Baker: I realise that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)—I am sure that he is disappointed not to be in his place this afternoon—along with several others, has over a long period taken a close interest in this case.
The hon. Lady asked me about guilty people possibly getting away with these crimes. I can tell her that investigations conducted by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the bombing of the premises in Birmingham. I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that he intends to appoint a team to review the findings of the Devon and Cornwall inquiry and to follow up any new lines of investigation that may come to light.

Mr. James Kilfedder: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on the appointment of a royal commission which will make a thorough and radical examination of criminal law, practice and procedure? This will obviously take some considerable time, and the law will have to be changed.
In the meantime, will the Home Secretary consider some alterations to the law? He will be aware that the IRA trains its terrorists in how to react when they are arrested, so that they can put forward a plea of innocence at their subsequent trials. Would he consider introducing a system similar to that employed on the continent, whereby a magistrate would cross-examine a defendant shortly after his arrest, so that the facts could be ascertained and subsequently could not be changed?

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the appointment of a royal commission. Its terms of reference specifically allow it to consider the hon. Gentleman's latter point—the possibility of an investigatory process at an early stage. Of course, that would be a novel departure for the criminal justice system in this country.
It would not be sensible for me to anticipate any of the findings of the royal commission and to introduce changes before it reports. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, and I refer him to one of the terms of reference that I have laid in the Library. The royal commission is asked to consider
the opportunities available for an accused person to state his position on the matters charged and the extent to which the courts might draw proper inferences from primary facts, the conduct of the accused, and any failure on his part to take advantage of an opportunity to state his position".

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I sat through the previous appeal for some time, and I have sat through all of this appeal, other than for today when the decision was made. May I express my absolute joy at the release of people who have been wrongly imprisoned for so long? May I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned for their release, especially the hon. Members

for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Harborough (Sir J. Farr)? It must have taken considerable courage for the hon. Member for Harborough to support the case of the Birmingham Six, given the political position that he holds.
There is one matter for which we cannot legislate, and that is the hatred and racist attitude that we witness so often, and especially in the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, sometimes in political statements and at other times from a prejudiced press. Does the Home Secretary agree that part of the problem with this case, arid part of the reason why it went so wrong at the beginning, was the demand made on the police to obtain instant results? Does not that demand stem from a substantially prejudiced press?

Mr. Baker: I could not agree with that point. The hon. Gentleman might recall the circumstances of the 1970s, when there were some substantial, wicked and criminal acts of terrorism that involved the death of many people. There is an expectation—not just by the press, but by people throughout the country—that every investigation should be pursued vigorously. The facts of the case are now well known. Errors have been made, and they have been put right today by the quashing of the conviction. The royal commission will examine the whole operation of the criminal justice system.

Mr. Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend accept that both parts of his statement will probably receive a general welcome, and that they deserve to do so? Will he ask the royal commission to consider —I say this without reference to the particular case or to particular individuals—whether it might not advantage British justice in England if it were open to the courts to have a verdict of not proven, as is the case in Scotland? The failure to obtain convictions or the overturning of them would then sometimes be viewed as evidence having been unsatisfactory or inadequate. Would not that be better than having to follow the current requirement of an absolute decision one way or the other?

Mr. Baker: I am sure that the royal commission would not be precluded from examining that possibility although I do not know whether it would be entirely appropriate in matters of this kind. Such a sentence has been available in Scottish courts, but there is nothing within the royal commission's reference that would preclude it from considering that if it so wished.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does not the Home Secretary agree that two immediate and urgent steps could be taken in the intermediate period between now and the report of the royal commission, which I welcome? Those steps might prevent miscarriages of justice occurring on this scale.
The first step is simple. Anyone arrested should have the automatic right of access to a solicitor. At the moment, some people in some circumstances are denied such access. As a second step, and as a temporary measure the power in the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 is amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for a judge in the appeals courts to review evidence as a jury would should be sustained. If a case arises in which the Court of Appeal is to review new or existing evidence that would have been reviewed by a jury, that particular case, of which there are not very many each year, should perhaps be returned to a jury for retrial.


Through those temporary measures, and until the royal commission reports, we might just improve the system a little.

Mr. Baker: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but it would be imprudent to bring forward piecemeal changes. The royal commission has been invited to consider the full range of the operation of the criminal justice system, including the examination and the right of access to a solicitor, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, such access can be denied for 36 hours and it can be denied for 48 hours under the prevention of terrorism legislation. I am sure that those matters will be considered by the royal commission, but they will be only part of a substantial consideration.
I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point about the Court of Appeal. I am sure that the royal commission will consider the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart) and by the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham). Clearly, there must be a separate, different and better system for the final process of examining miscarriages of justice. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for St. Helens, South when he says that any body that examines miscarriages of justice should not necessarily be just a court as we know one today, but it could perhaps have —I do not anticipate the royal commission in this respect—some investigative powers of its own to consider particular evidence.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a very sad day for lawyers. However, as a profession, we are grateful that my right hon. Friend has acted so speedily to investigate the whole system and, we hope, exonerate it by introducing reforms that will prevent such things happening again.
With regard to the Maguire case, the Guildford Four and this case, it is clear that there must be a mechanism by which new evidence can be examined before it is placed before the Court of Appeal, which should be able to act as a jury and evaluate that evidence. It is insufficient to consider the matter from the point of view of irregularities if we are to avoid such things happening again.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree that we should be grateful that, as I have already said, in the overwhelming majority of cases, British justice works very effectively.
With regard to my hon. Friend's final point, one of the particular characteristics of this very long case was the appearance of forensic evidence very late in the day—in 1988–89—affecting the papers of the confession and in relation to the handling of nitro-glycerine. As Lord Justice Lloyd has made clear, that evidence was available to the Court of Appeal and was no doubt germane to its decision today to quash the convictions. When new evidence is available like that, it is important that it is investigated and made available. As soon as that was known, my predecessor referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. William Ross: In his statement, the Home Secretary seemed to say that the royal commission would examine only the legal jurisdiction in England and Wales, excluding Scotland and

Northern Ireland. Would any beneficial findings apply rapidly thereafter to Scotland and Northern Ireland particularly because there is grave concern in Northern Ireland about four UDR soldiers in prison there?
When did the police investigating this crime and the others to which the Home Secretary referred, cease their investigations? Why are the West Midlands police simply considering the work carried out by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary? Why are the West Midlands police not making inquiries to discover the identities of the people who actually carried out the crime? Most hon. Members do not share the view of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) who said that this is a sad day for lawyers. This is certainly a very sad day for the police in this country. If people do not trust the police, there will be real problems. The police are responsible for the mess, not the lawyers.

Mr. Baker: Many things have come to light during this long case. The hon. Gentleman may have misheard one of my earlier replies because he asked whether the West Midlands police are conducting further investigations. As I said earlier, investigations conducted by the Devon and Cornwall constabulary have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the bombing of the premises in Birmingham—the original crime in this case. I understand from the chief constable of the West Midlands police that he intends to appoint a team to review the findings of the Devon and Cornwall inquiry and to follow up any new lines of investigation that may come to light in the actual bombing incident.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Like the Home Secretary, I recognise that the overwhelming evidence suggests that miscarriages of justice are the exception rather than the rule. However, when they occur there is a heavy burden on society to ensure that those mistakes are rectified.
The Home Secretary did not answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about Northern Ireland and Scotland. Clearly miscarriages of justice can occur in Scotland and Northern Ireland just as they can in England and Wales. What implications might there be in the royal commission's report for Northern Ireland and Scotland particularly as the greatest case of injustice outstanding at the moment relates to four British soldiers who are members of the UDR?

Mr. Baker: In response to the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), I can tell them that the royal commission will examine the practices and procedures of the criminal justice system in England and Wales. The systems in Scotland and Northern Ireland are different from that in England and Wales, and they are also different from each other. We must await the findings. They may well have a wider application, and I bear in mind what the hon. Member for Belfast, East said. I am sure that the royal commission will consider his comments and those of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East.
I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that miscarriages of justice are the exception. Fortunately, that is the case, but, when they occur, they must be dealt with vigorously, competently and efficiently. The whole purpose of the royal commission is to examine the procedures so that the whole investigative process that


evolves when there is an alleged miscarriage of justice means that it will be dealt with more expeditiously, more fairly and more quickly.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Home Secretary accept that, if it was his aim to establish a royal commission that would fearlessly and ruthlessly weigh the evidence and produce a report that was both comprehensive and of intellectual distinction, he would have been hard pressed to find a better person to head it than the person whose name he announced today?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that we should not underestimate the royal commission's task? if we are to have a system of justice in which we all have confidence, the royal commission's report must be as thorough as possible? Does he accept that we must satisfy the police that British justice is as fair as we would like it to be? If the police do not believe that, some of them—I put it no higher than that—are prepared to tamper with evidence so that they get the justice they think we deserve rather than the justice we should have.

Mr. Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Lord Runciman. He is a distinguished academic at Cambridge university, and I am sure that he will be a very distinguished chairman of the royal commission.
Several hon. Members have referred to the police, but serious questions also arise with regard to the handling of forensic evidence and the way in which it may or may not be made available to the defence and the rights of the defence to have access to that evidence.
Many changes are already in hand. I visited Aldermaston forensic laboratory a fortnight ago and it was explained to me that the defence now has access to forensic evidence. It can send in its own experts, see what evidence is being prepared, and have it explained. In future, the defence will be able to commission forensic laboratories to work for it. That is a tremendous advance on the system available in the 1970s, so many changes are being made.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although a terrible wrong has been done, we can take some satisfaction from the fact that a British court has freed those men? Does he agree that, in view of the grave implications of his statement, it would be appropriate in every possible way for the House to debate the matter on Monday instead of the War Crimes Bill?

Mr. Baker: That is not really a matter for me. I simply felt that it was my duty to come to the House at the earliest opportunity to make a statement. The men were released at 3.30 pm. With the full agreement of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), for which I am grateful, we made the unusual decision that a statement should be made immediately. It is right that the country should know the Government's reaction.

Mr. Stuart Bell: Does the Secretary of State agree that the IRA, through its actions, has poisoned the wells of our justice? It has killed and maimed many hundreds in the island of Ireland and our country. However, has not our democracy been found wanting and the hysteria that surrounded events 17 years ago led to convictions that were not safe, sound or satisfactory? The royal commission's inquiry will take three years, but will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility of the

admissibility of confessions—of linking tape recording of confessions with video tapes of confessions—to ensure that they can be neither dubious nor doubtful in the future?

Mr. Baker: Changes have been made in the way confessions are now recorded. Contemporaneous accounts of confessions are now written down and sometimes tape-recorded, but the written accounts are always signed by the arrested person. I am sure that the royal commission will consider that matter.
The hon. Gentleman commented on the IRA and its concern with justice. It is not concerned with justice at all——

Ms. Short: He did not say that. He said that the IRA was undermining justice.

Mr. Baker: In that case, I agree with him. The IRA has poisoned the wells of British justice. It is not remotely concerned with justice but with trying to destroy the democratic process in this country and the will and determination of successive Governments not to give in to it. It will not succeed.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, whatever rejoicing may be taking place in some quarters tonight, deep anger and dismay will be felt in others that, after 17 years, the evil people responsible for the crime that killed 21 people and injured hundreds of others are still at large? Will he confirm that no effort will be spared by the West Midlands police in the inquiry that he has announced to the House? Will he also ensure, in looking to the future, that no effort will be spared and every assistance—financial and therwise—will be given to police forces throughout the country to root out the IRA, whose evil work we in Staffordshire have had to put up with, at close quarters in the past year?

Mr. Baker: I sympathise with my hon. Friend, because last year saw the murder of a soldier in a station in Staffordshire and the wounding of two other people. There was also an earlier incident in Staffordshire this year. I assure my hon. Friend that no money or effort will be spared in dealing with terrorist attacks and trying to ensure that they do not occur. I assure him that arrangements have been made. I have strengthened the counter-terrorist activity in our country in the past two or three months and further resources have been made available, because we must provide every support to ensuring that people who commit crimes of such an appalling nature are brought to justice. This afternoon, we contacted the chief constable of West Midlands police, who intends to appoint a team to look into the original crime in this matter—the Birmingham pub bombings.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Would the Home Secretary care to express his sympathy for the families of those six men—their wives and children—who struggled for 17 long years, with many disappointments and much of the time alone, to see justice done? Would he care to recall to mind what Lord Denning said in 1980 in one of those appeals, that if those men were innocent, the police were guilty of perjury, violence and threats? The obtaining of confessions involuntarily and


improperly has been put in evidence. Will the Home Secretary assure the House that those policemen will be brought to trial?

Mr. Baker: Investigations are being conducted at the request of the chief constable of the West Midlands police, by the Devon and Cornwall police into any allegations that may be made. I am not prepared to comment on them now, but I assure the hon. Lady that the matter is in hand.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that, without the tireless campaign by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Birmingham Six would not have been released today? Is he aware that one of the criteria by which a criminal justice system is judged is its ability to correct mistakes? Far from weakening British justice, today's decision will strengthen it.

Mr. Baker: I recognise the campaign of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South and the books that he produced. I am sure that he will be disappointed that he is not present to see the culmination of his efforts.

Mr. Hattersley: He is at court.

Mr. Baker: He is at the court. I am sure that he will be pleased to know the outcome. It is a test of a judicial system that, when errors are identified, they can be corrected. Errors have been made in this case and have been corrected.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Has the Secretary of State seen early-day motion 518 signed by 69 Members from both sides of the House, expressing disquiet about the sentencing of four Ulster Defence Regiment men? Does he recognise that many people in Northern Ireland will feel hurt by today's news that the royal commission will be restricted to England and Wales? There is no constitutional reason why it could not have included Northern Ireland. As the case in Northern Ireland seems to be moving slowly—as did the Birmingham one—but inexorably towards a similar result as the Birmingham case, will the Secretary of State consider at this stage extending the role of the royal commission to Northern Ireland?
The Secretary of State commented that, for courts to have our respect, they must find guilty people guilty and innocent people innocent. Will he make it clear that guilty people will not be found innocent anywhere in the United Kingdom and that, in some cases, those found not guilty are not automatically presumed innocent?

Mr. Baker: On the right hon. Gentleman's last point, it is not for me to determine guilt or innocence, but those men were wrongly imprisoned. They should not have been convicted on the evidence that was presented to the court and will receive compensation for that.
I shall resist the invitation to extend the inquiry of the royal commission into the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. I know what the hon. Gentleman has said and will draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who has similar powers of referral in such matters.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Home Secretary confirm that the royal commission will

look into the appointment of judges, particularly High Court judges and their backgrounds, and perhaps come up with recommendations to appoint judges from a wider base? Has he seen any sign today that the senior judges involved in the case may be considering early retirement? That might do more than the royal commission to restore confidence in our judiciary.

Mr. Baker: Those matters are not for me, and the role of the royal commission does not extend to considering the appointment of judges.

Dr. John Reid: Many people will be disappointed that the Home Secretary so grudgingly acknowledged the role of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in this issue. There were three words that he could have used, were they in his lexic: gratitude, apology and thanks to my hon. Friend for the role that he played. I am afraid and disappointed that the grudging and mean-minded manner with which the Home Secretary responded has done little to improve his stature in the House.
On inquiries, does the Home Secretary accept that while many of us welcome a royal commission and even an investigation into the events surrounding the initial crime, we are more worried about the intervening 17 years than the six weeks or six months of the investigation? Does he accept that some of us find it absolutely impossible to understand how, apparently despite all the evidence, during that period, the establishment refused to accept that six innocent people were in prison?
Will the Home Secretary caution his colleagues on the Conservative Benches? I have listened to accusations that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and others, including myself, were supporters of the Provisional IRA when we raised a matter of justice. Will he caution his colleagues that, whether in the case of the Maguires, the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six or the UDR Four, our fight for justice does not mean that we are supporters of the Provisional IRA, or fully paid-up members of the Orange lodge?

Mr. Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. On his earlier points about the length of time taken, I agree that it has taken a totally unacceptable time to resolve this matter. That is one of the matters that the royal commission will consider. If there are alleged miscarriages of justice, they must be investigated in a more expeditious way than has been possible in this case. I remind the hon. Gentleman that important forensic evidence came to light very late in this case. That evidence in particular led the Court of Appeal to quash the convictions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the royal commission's investigations stretch over the dishonourable conduct of parts of the press? There was a tissue of lies, vilification and abuse of people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who was described as a loony left Member of Parliament who backed bombers, simply because he raised questions about a matter which has turned out to be probably the most serious miscarriage of justice in the history of our criminal courts. It is important that the journalists who produce such distortions and vilifications are held to


account. Such journalists contributed a great deal to the hysterical atmosphere that resulted in the mistaken convictions in the first place.
Will the Home Secretary confirm that this case demonstrates beyond peradventure, as lawyers are wont to say, that capital punishment has no place in our society and rests only in the minds of a few Tory backwoodsmen?

Mr. Baker: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman knows my view. When the crimes were committed, the possibility of the capital sentence for them did not exist in British law. Although the terms of the royal commission are wide, they do not extend to the press. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to continue to make the points that he raised—many may feel that they are valid or invalid, but that is not for me to say—he should make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Is not there a risk that statements from the Home Secretary from the Dispatch Box to a sombre House may have the effect of sanitising the horrow of what has happened in the past 17 years? The horror is not so much that forensic evidence came to light relatively recently, as the Home Secretary just said, but the knowledge, which is familiar to anyone who has any information whatever about the case, that the men were assaulted in custody and thereafter made statements. If people received life sentences on that basis in any other country in the world, we in Britain would express outrage.
Lastly, following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), will the Home Secretary reflect that, if he were ever sufficiently mistaken as to listen to advice on criminal justice matters from most of his hon. Friends—including his predecessor and the former Prime Minister, who are keen supporters of the death penalty—we should have no cause to rejoice in cases such as this when convictions were quashed? We all know precisely what would have happened in 1974.

Mr. Baker: The capital sentence was not available to the courts when the crimes were committed. It had been taken off the statute book before that. I made my views clearly known on that in the debate before Christmas. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures about my predecessor or my hon. Friends. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned that there should not be miscarriages of justice and that, if there are alleged miscarriages of justice, they should be examined properly, dealt with expeditiously and, if an injustice has been perpetrated, corrected.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose——

Mr. Michael Shersby: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Shersby.

Mr. Skinner: He has just walked in.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. Although the hon. Gentleman was not here for the statement, he assures me that he has read it.

Mr. Shersby: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the terms of reference of the royal commission will be restricted to pre-trial procedures, forensic evidence and other related matters? Or will it provide an opportunity to examine the role of the police in modern society? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has not been a royal

commission on the police force since the Willink report? Is not this a time when such a royal commission could examine the broader issues to which I referred?

Mr. Baker: We do not envisage that the royal commission will be extended into a commission on all the various aspects of the police, which is what my hon. Friend implied. However, I draw his attention to the first two points, and particularly the first point, in the terms of reference. Clearly, the royal commission will look into the conduct of police investigations and their supervision by senior police officers.

Mr. Speaker: Before the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) interrupts me again, I remind the House that the statement was not shown on the screen, so I am allowing a certain amount of latitude.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I apologise that I was not in the Chamber for the statement for the reasons that you have given, Mr. Speaker. May I ask a precise question arising out of the May committee, which is investigating the Guildford case and is examining the police and other matters? It is being held up because of the police inquiry and because there may be court cases. Therefore, the May committee investigation is being slowed down. Will the same thing happen to the royal commission? There may well be—I put it no higher than that—court cases arising out of the conduct of the West Midlands police. As what went on in the police force is germane to the inquiry, will another problem arise? In any event, where will the May investigation slot into the royal commission?

Mr. Baker: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman was not present to hear my statement, but I know that he follows these matters closely. Sir John May is looking into the cases of the Guildford Four and of the Maguires. He is held up on the Guildford Four because there is a possibility that criminal proceedings will be brought against certain officers. The investigation cannot continue until that case is resolved. But Sir John May has agreed to be a member of the royal commission, so he will be able to bring his considerable experience to bear on the work of the commission. That is why the royal commission has general terms of reference rather than terms of reference specific to a particular incident or to the Birmingham Six.

Mr. Hattersley: May I offer the Home Secretary another opportunity—he has had five already—to show a little graciousness in this matter and offer congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), without whom the men would still be in prison?
When the right hon. Gentleman has abandoned the mean-mindedness of previous answers, will he deal with another question? Six of his answers referred to the protections provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Will he confirm that, if six men were arrested and accused of similar crimes today, they would not be afforded the protection of PACE? They would be denied immediate access to solicitors, which was one of the problems in the case of the Birmingham Six and would be a problem if the case were reproduced today.

Mr. Baker: I have recognised the work of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). He wrote his book and he has campaigned hard. He has every right to feel proud that the convictions have been quashed today.
On the right hon. Gentleman's particular point, considerable changes have been made as a result of PACE —[Interruption.] May I reply to the right hon. Gentleman? Those changes would have affected substantially the way in which the original investigations were conducted. For example, there are now custody records. The custody sergeant would have had to read out the clear rights which were available to the person in the police station who had been arrested but not charged. As it was alleged that the men were beaten up, the custody sergeant would have had to decide whether a doctor should be called to examine the arrested men. Changes have also been made on the signing of confessions. On periods without solicitors, as I have already said, two different proceedings are clearly set out in PACE. The period without solicitors under PACE is 36 hours and under the prevention of terrorism Act it is 48 hours.
The right hon. Gentleman should recognise that a lot of changes have been made, but I agree that we must consider the whole procedure of the criminal justice system to see whether other changes should be made. He should be generous enough to recognise that, over the past few years, we have made many changes to ensure that the criminal justice system works better.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Judging from the questions that have been allowed this afternoon, I take it that the basic rule has not been changed. Ordinarily, people must be here for the statement. This statement was notified on the annunciators and it would be regarded critically if people were allowed special privileges, such as being able to read copies of the statement. Copies are not available to ordinary Back Benchers and the House would be regarded critically—not you, Mr. Speaker—if people who are paid about £30,000 a year by outside organisations were given access to the statement so that they could ask questions to earn their money.

Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with that matter. The hon. Gentleman knows that the statement did not appear on the annunciators until the middle of business questions which was well after 3.30 pm. That is why I allowed a little discretion today. The general rule has not changed. If hon. Members are not here to hear the statement, it is very difficult for them to ask questions and therefore they are not normally called.

Mr. Alan Williams: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not need any help. I allowed two hon. Members who had not heard the statement to ask questions. Today is a private Members' day and they could perhaps have asked questions during the coming debate, but they might not have received an answer.

Mr. Williams: I wish to raise a different matter. I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Personally, I am not dissatisfied as notification of the statement appeared very late on the monitors. A more interesting point is that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) implied that he had read a copy of the statement. Perhaps the Secretary of State had a copy put in the Library or in the Vote Office concurrently with coming to the Dispatch Box. On previous occasions, Mr. Speaker, you have said that you think it wrong that some Back Benchers should have access to copies of statements which are denied to others. I want to raise that aspect—whether copies of this statement were generally available or whether they were available only as a special privilege for spokesmen for the Police Federation.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know. When the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) came to see me, he said that although he had not heard the statement, he had read it. Where he got it, I do not know.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft Education Reform Act 1988 (Application of Section 122 to Institutions in Wales) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Adjournment (Easter and Monday 6 May)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House, at its rising on Thursday 28 March, do adjourn until Monday 15 April and, at its rising on Friday 3 May, do adjourn until Tuesday 7 May.—[Mr. Kirkhope]

Mr. Paul Channon: This afternoon, we have heard about some grave matters. It will be difficult to bring the House back to other issues, but the Adjournment debate exists for hon. Members to raise issues that they think should be considered by the House before it rises for Easter. I support the motion with enthusiasm, as I suspect the majority of hon. Members do. I hope that the House will forgive me if I now move to other issues and especially to one which is of great importance to my constituency. It is an issue that I have never had an opportunity to raise before and one that I regret having to raise now.
I wish to discuss the attitude of the Eastern Arts regional association, which is funded by the Arts Council with money provided by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts but has used that money in a way that has caused deep distress in my part of Essex. In the past few days, it has withdrawn the grant from the Palace theatre in my constituency, which is now at grave risk of having to close. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may know the work of Eastern Arts as well as I do. Perhaps he has been more fortunate than I in his dealings with it. I hope that he has. Paradoxically, when I was Minister for the Arts, I was fond of regional arts associations and did my best to promote them. I am not sure in retrospect whether that was a good idea.
The theatre in my constituency has been in receipt of subsidy from the Arts Council for many years. Recently, it has been jointly funded by the Arts Council and the regional arts association. Until devolution two or three years ago, it received funding from both but now it is funded only by Eastern Arts and Southend council. Eastern Arts provided about £100,000 for a couple of years and then reduced the grant to £93,000. A few weeks ago, it announced that it was cutting the grant completely, apart from one payment of £50,000 as a sort of farewell.
There have been disputes between Eastern Arts and the theatre, but as there are only two subsidised repertory theatres in Essex, the decision to take the extreme step of closing one down is absolutely extraordinary. The result of the withdrawal of the grant is that the theatre is in grave danger of closing. It receives generous support from Southend council, and Essex council is now making a modest grant for the first time and is alarmed about what is happening. The theatre has had to place a surcharge of 50p on seat prices. I hope that it will survive. If it does, it will be no thanks to public money.
The debate raging in Essex is about the quality of the performances, which was the excuse given for the withdrawal of the grant. I have examined the repertory of the only other subsidised theatre in Essex—the Mercury theatre in Colchester. There is very little difference between the repertories. Quality is a matter of opinion. I do not see all the productions, but the last one I saw was very good.
The House will be interested to know that attendance at the theatre has gone up in the past 12 months from 55 per cent. to 67 per cent. Very few theatres could achieve such a record at a time when theatre as a whole is going through

a difficult patch. I think that the Palace theatre deserves congratulations. Its deficit has also been slowly reduced. Again, I suspect that many theatres have deficits that are increasing, so I believe that the theatre is well run and well managed.
It is very sad that the theatre's grant has been withdrawn. It is especially perverse as it was withdrawn in the same week that the theatre began a new scheme to benefit the blind. I quote from a letter written to me by a blind constituent:
only last Wednesday…I helped to launch the Audio Description Facility for blind people in the theatre. I am totally blind, aged 50, and for the first time in my life I had the opportunity to listen to the thrilling…play…and feel on an equal footing with the fully sighted people present…it is the first theatre in the U.K. to be totally accessible for all disabled people. It has level entrances, a ground floor toilet for disabled people, it has signed performances for the deaf and now it has this new facility for the blind and partially sighted. With ten per cent. of the population being disabled, and with very few opportunities for entertainment if this theatre has to close because of lack of funding, it would he a disaster for the people of Essex. I would urge you to find out why the money you give to the Eastern Arts Council is not reaching the Palace Theatre.
My constituents, those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) who support me will be deprived. I hope that I shall also receive the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) whose constituents will be luckier than mine. My constituents will be deprived of live theatre if the Palace theatre is forced to close, although it will make every effort to stay open. The theatre has enormous support in the town, and hundreds of letters have poured in. Incidentally, the theatre is beautiful and has recently been done up.
It is ironic that the theatre is under threat because of the actions of a Government-funded body. I understand the arm's-length principle, I have often argued for it and I strongly believe in it. I welcome the efforts of Essex county council to examine the matter to see what can be done. I do not ask the Minister for the Arts to intervene directly. He does not have the power to fund the theatre and I understand that because I have been in such a situation before. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask our right hon. Friend, who has been helpful, whether he can knock heads together. I urge that in the interests of the thousands of people in south Essex who go to the theatre, who like it very much and who will otherwise be deprived of it. The purpose of public money for the arts cannot be to deprive people of existing arts organisations except in exceptional circumstances.
There may be things that should be changed, and there may be faults on both sides. However, I am speaking moderately today. I could say far stronger things about Eastern Arts than I felt that I should today. I ask my right hon. Friend, before we rise for the Easter Adjournment, to turn his attention to the matter. It may be a narrow matter, but in south—east Essex it is deeply felt. It is ironic that an agency which has money from the Government, and which lobbies Members of Parliament in East Anglia for more money, is engaged in the destruction of an extremely popular theatre. I hope that the House will feel that I have not wasted its time by raising the matter briefly. It is a constituency matter of the highest importance and I hope that something can be done to save the theatre before all is over.

Mr. Alan Williams: An issue that has been of deep concern to me should be the subject of a statement, and perhaps even a debate, before the House goes into recess. This afternoon, we have listened to an extremely important statement about six people who tragically served sentences that they should not have served. I want to put the reverse situation before the House, as I have stumbled across a remarkable saga in which many people who should be serving sentences are not doing so and in which the Home Office is apparently conspiring—I hate to use that word—to keep that information from the House of Commons, as I hope to demonstrate. The matter is even worse than it sounds, because many of the people concerned are convicted drug pedlars or drug offenders who have left prison after serving only a fraction of the sentence. They have literally walked out of open prisons.
In his role as protector of Members' interests, the Leader of the House will recognise my frustration as a Back Bencher that, for three months, I have had to battle with blocking answers from the Home Office as I tried to obtain the information that I wanted to put to colleagues today. It has been a clear example of a determined effort by the Executive to deny the House the information to which it is entitled.
In those three months, as a result of a series of questions, I have managed to establish that, in the past two and a half years—information is not available for earlier than that—more than 2,000 convicted criminals have escaped from open prisons. However, the Home Office will not tell us how many have been recaptured or how many are drug offenders. I have faced a series of blocking answers. That silly situation, which has developed a new dimension because of the difficulties created by the Home Office, could have been avoided if the Home Office had been open with the House at the beginning.
At the beginning of December, I tabled a question based on a casual piece of information that I had received and which sounded incredible to me—that drug offenders were walking out of open prisons. I tabled a question to the Home Secretary asking how many drug offenders had escaped from open prisons in the previous three years and how many had been recaptured. To my surprise, I received a clear blocking answer from the Department, saying that it would be too expensive to provide that information. The House could not be told how many had escaped or how many had been recaptured.
I then went to the Table Office. I want to emphasise that the Table Office has been helpful, but it has to work within the rules that the House lays down. Nothing that I say here is intended as a criticism of the Table Office. Indeed, I have been able to make my present progress only because of the kindness of the officials who work there.
I had to find a way round the blocking answer. The block was that the question was too expensive, so I broke it down into nine component parts. For each year, I asked how many had escaped, how many had been recaptured and how many were drug offenders. I was told that the Home Office could not tell me the figures for 1987 or for the first half of 1988. However, the Department told me that 311 had escaped in the second half of 1988 and that 682 had escaped in 1989. It would—lo and behold—be too expensive to tell me how many had been recaptured and how many were drug offenders. With the support of many

colleagues, I tabled a motion asking whether the Home Office did not bother to count the number that came back in. I asked whether it was possible that the Home Office was trying to hide something.
On one of the occasions when fortune smiles on lonely Back Benchers, a piece of paper fluttered into my hand. It was headed "Heathrow Cases". I do not know about cases at Gatwick, at Dover, at Folkestone, at Birmingham airport or at Manchester. The piece of paper referred to cases at Heathrow and was a list of 26 mainly non-British-sounding names. Delighted, I went to the Table Office and said that I wanted to table a question asking the Home Secretary about the 26 prisoners and what had happened to them. I was told, "You cannot table a question about 26 individuals. That is running a campaign through the Order Paper. You can put down only small groups of them and you can put another group down when you have had answers to the first group." Week by week, I have tabled questions about four or six individuals at a time.
I eventually elicited from a reluctant Home Office the information that all 26, 25 of whom were women, were convicted drug offenders and that all 26 had escaped from open prisons. Only two had found their way back again. It took a series of questions to obtain that information, and in the meantime, we had moved into 1991, so I was able to ask how many had escaped last year. I found that the figure of 682 for 1989, which had horrified me, was an achievement by the Home Office. The figure had hit a low. Last year, more than 1,100 escaped from the Home Office —[Laughter.]Literally: that is the point. The police capture them and the Home Office mislays them. I do not need to tell hon. Members that it would be too expensive to tell me how many of those 1,100 were recaptured and how many were drug offenders.
As an intrepid Back Bencher, I decided that other ways must be open to me. I had the information about the 26, but another 2,000 were still missing from the past two and a half years. Even if a wedge of paper with the 2,000 names descended from on high—and I was lucky enough for it to miss me and to pick it up—and even if I then tried to pursue the Home Office about the other 2,000 people missing, it would take me five parliamentary years on the procedures available to us to obtain the answers. There would be a backlog problem. In that same five years, another 5,500 would have escaped.
I am the parliamentary equivalent of the man who paints the Forth bridge. As I am a Welshman, perhaps my reference should be to the Severn bridge. Stretching ahead of me is a career that will involve chasing all these people that the Home Office apparently does not chase—or if it does chase them, it does not find them—or if it finds them, it does not know how many it has found.

Mr. Conal Gregory: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. The most recent estimate of the cost of answering a parliamentary question is £54. Has the hon. Gentleman done a calculation on the basis of that figure? How much is it costing the Government to answer all these questions? Would not rather more forthright answers be easier?

Mr. Williams: In view of what I am about to say, the hon. Gentleman's point is most apposite.
Eventually, I found the secret. I decided to try yet another tack. There are 13 open prisons—three for


women, and 10 for men. I went to the Table Office, and the people there were not pleased when I said that, over a period of three years, I would table nine questions about each of the 13 prisons. The total number of questions would be 117. I let the Department know that I was thinking of tabling 117 questions—all because it would not answer one question on 4 December. I am sure that the Leader of the House will be pleased to know that I have gone up-market.
When I threatened to put down 117 questions, I was told that I could not do so. It was suggested to me that I might try tabling questions about one of the prisons first of all. I did indeed put down nine questions about one prison—Drake Hall. If the Home Office is forthcoming in respect of those questions, I may be able to table the remainder of the 117 about other prisons from which people have been going walkabout.
Perhaps Departments, in answering questions, must keep within their cost ceiling. My going up-market must have created alarm in the Home Office. No longer am I being answered by the Minister of State—a Minister against whom I have no complaint as an individual. Today I have gone all the way to the top—the Secretary of State himself has actually called the case in and given me the answers.
It is absurd, ridiculous, that a Member of Parliament should have to go through such a process. Had I not been given that list, I might never have received the information that I have put before the House today. The whole matter would probably have died in December, because of the blocking answers given by the Home Office. It is appalling that, police officers and customs officers having worked industriously to capture drug pedlars and abusers, and our courts having, at high cost, tried and sentenced them, the Home Office should mislay them. I asked how long 10 of these people had served. The sentences ranged from three years to eight years, but none of the prisoners deigned to remain guests of Her Majesty for more than 16 months. Some of them served only 10 months before going walkabout.
Would not it have been far better if the Department had provided the information in a sensible way? If it were only half as assiduous in looking after its prisoners as it is in coveting and cosseting its information, I should not be making this speech today. I submit that this matter, while I have treated it in a relatively light-hearted way, is serious. It is indeed serious that 2,000 people should disappear from open prisons. It is not a matter to be treated lightly that drug pedlars, having served minute fractions of their sentences, should disappear. The House is entitled to information. The Minister should make a statement and allow us to ask some questions.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). The fact that his questions are not always answered—and I hope that that does not happen too often—gives him the excuse to make, and the rest of us the chance to listen to, a most amusing, worthy and very relevant speech. It is perfectly proper that this matter should be raised on the Adjournment.
I hope that the subject that I want to raise, which is very different, is also appropriate for the Adjournment. I do not think that we should go away for our Easter recess until we

have had a statement from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about the hostages in the Lebanon. I hope that my right hon. Friend has heard from the Foreign Office about my intention to raise the matter. I wrote to the Foreign Secretary, and provided my right hon. Friend with a copy of the letter. I do not want to criticise; I simply seek information. I should like to be given an indication of continuing intent on the part of the Government to do all they can for those in captivity.
I speak not just as a Back-Bench Member of this House but also as co-chairman of the all-party freedom for the hostages group. The other co-chairmen are the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), who represents the Labour party, and the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who represents the Liberal Democrats. As I go through the full styles and titles of those two gentlemen, it strikes me that our Scottish colleagues might consider making their constituency names somewhat easier.
The names of the hostages are very familiar. On 17 April, John McCarthy will have been in captivity for five years, and will be beginning his sixth year. Terry Waite was taken in January 1987, so he is in his fifth year of captivity. Jackie Mann is fast approaching three years in captivity. I do not want to be emotional about these things. Suffice it to say that many hon. Members may, like me, have listened, in whole or in part, to the very moving press conference given in Dublin castle by Brian Keenan after his release. I do not think that anyone could have listened to Brian Keenan without feeling sympathy for the appalling conditions that these people are no doubt suffering. Indeed, "captivity" is a very polite term in these circumstances. To be a little light-hearted about the matter, I might say that I only wish that we had an opportunity to put down parliamentary questions about these people going walkabout. May they be able to do so fairly soon.
Another person in captivity, although not a hostage in the Lebanon, is Roger Cooper. As a result of a closely related matter—closely related, in that Iran has power to contribute towards a solution—he has been locked up in Avin prison in Teheran for more than five years. There has been no proper trial, and when, from time to time, his release has appeared imminent, our relations with Iran have deteriorated, and he has not been released. I mention this person specifically because I hope that Iran will make the first gesture towards the normalisation of relations by releasing him. The fact that he is entirely under their control puts him in a category different from that of the hostages in the Lebanon.
I am not suggesting in any way that my right hon. Friend should do any deals—open, covert, shabby, or otherwise. That has never been the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and quite right, too. Nevertheless, we very much welcome the practical opportunities that now exist, with the overdue restoration of diplomatic relations with Syria and with Iran. Our relations with Iran are crucial to the release of Roger Cooper.
The case of Mr. Kokabi is now over. That gentleman was released yesterday, the prosecution having offered no further evidence against him. He was an alleged conspirator in arson attacks on book shops in the aftermath of the Salman Rushdie affair. That gave rise to difficulty with the radical elements in Iran. Mr. Kokabi will be deported, and I hope that the Iranians will see fit to release Roger Cooper.
This is not an occasion for a speech on foreign policy, but we have to bear in mind the fact that, if we want people's help, it is counter-productive to be critical of them. There are serious difficulties in Iran because of radical elements there. The Government there are trying to help, and it is up to our Government to recognise that and, in pressing them, to realise also that they are a formidible potential ally of the West in that region.
I have dealt with the restoration of diplomatic relations with Iran, and parliamentary contacts with Iran provide another avenue. The British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union is trying to set up an exchange of delegations with Iran and its Parliament, the Majlis. That can but be helpful. The advantage of that is that a delegation goes out to Tehran not just in order to talk about hostages, but to discuss a range of bilateral relations between the two countries to which parliamentarians can often contribute in a way that Governments cannot.
There are also governmental contacts. I hope that ambassadorial relations can be restored as soon as possible. They are at chargé d'affaires level at the moment. Finally, commercial contacts should be increasing more than they have been. It is no accident that Germany and Japan have been evident in Iran throughout its difficulties and are now reaping the benefit.
I do not forget the gradually improving situation in the Lebanon and our relations with Syria. Syria is now back in the dialogue with the west and more generally. The Secretary of State was there only yesterday. All those countries can help.
I should like some assurance from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the four people whom I have mentioned will not be forgotten and, more importantly, that every possible effort will be made to secure their release.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I wholly concur with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), as I am sure will all hon. Members. A few weeks ago, during a gala occasion at the Fishmongers hall, the Royal National Institute for the Deaf awarded its first communicator of the year award. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is particularly appropriate to tell the House that it was awarded to Jill Morrell, who has been the leader of the Friends of John McCarthy group and ceaseless in trying to secure his release and the release of other hostages.
That enables me to move on to the matter about which I wish to speak. Cases which have been brought to my attention and my own activity demonstrate that the needs of deaf people in further and higher education are not being adequately and urgently addressed. Many people are losing out because they do not have adequate provision.
As somebody who has worked with organisations for the deaf for the past few years, I predict that the House will see growing militancy by deaf people in pursuit of their rights to the same education and training opportunities as hearing people.
I have introduced, but not secured time for, a Bill which was published last week and which has all-party support entitled Deaf Persons (Access to Further and Higher Education and Training) Bill. It is very much modelled on

the practical legislation that exists in the United States. When that legislation was introduced in 1975 in the United States, it led to a tenfold increase in the number of courses for deaf people and the number of deaf people pursuing further and higher education within the United States. Matters are improving in the United Kingdom, but we are way behind that level of participation.
It is difficult to obtain figures showing how many deaf people are participating and how many are being shut out. A survey carried out by the RNID suggested that there are only about 20 deaf people in each academic year in further and higher education in the United Kingdom. That represents about one fifth of what might reasonably be expected given their profile within the population. It is worth saying that those statistics hide and disguise a great deal of personal frustration and misery of which I have evidence. Some students who secure entry to colleges or universities are forced to drop out through lack of adequate support, and many others—we do not know how many—are deterred from even trying, and are forced to settle for training and subsequent employment well below their capabilities.
I freely admit to a little plagiarism from a lecture delivered at the end of last year by the professor of education at Reading university, Professor Brian Palmer, who is active in trying to promote the interests of higher education for the deaf. Unusually, I shall follow his example and ask hon. Members who do not know what it is like to be deaf to watch my lips while I mouth words without using my voice. I then said, "This is unfair because it is difficult to lip-read at a distance. But deaf people watching an interpreter would know what was being said because they would see what was being signed." That demonstrates the frustration that deaf people will have in trying to participate in full-time education, as intelligent as any hon. Member but unable to do so because they do not have the support and assistance that they need.
Only a limited number of institutions in Britain provide for the deaf. I have already mentioned Reading university; Durham university is another. Lancashire and Sheffield polytechnics, Derbyshire college of higher education, the Open university and Doncaster technical college also make such provision. But, across the board, provision remains abysmal.
My Bill proposed the establishment of an education and training council for deaf people which could produce statistics which are not available and co-ordinate the development of provision. It would also give deaf people an absolute right to the support that they need to pursue courses. It would block discrimination and recognise British sign language, the right to interpreters and all support aid at no cost to the student.
The Leader of the House may be interested in what I am about to say given his former role as Secretary of State for Education and Science. I genuinely welcome the recent changes that the Government introduced to the allowances which provide for £3,000-worth of equipment per course and £4,000 per annum towards interpreters. Those sums are necessary and they are welcome, but they remain means-tested, and that is unfair. They do not secure the co-ordination of development which the proposed council would achieve. Not only that, but before I came into the House this afternoon I was advised that they were not working in the interests of deaf people, as the


Minister, when he announced them, assured us they would. Deaf people are not getting access to those funds as they hoped they would and believe they should.
Rather than just giving bald statistics, I will cite some cases to show what that means to individuals. There is the case of a female student taking a BA in sociology at a university, who received the disabled students' allowances, but they were not sufficient to cover all interpreter and note-taker costs. She needs an extra £1,000 this year. Under the existing provisions, she should be getting that, but she is not.
A male student taking an MA in environmental planning has been refused funds by his local education authority, and he needs more than £4,500 to cover interpreting and note-taking costs for the year. A female student doing a three-year qualification in youth and community work at a polytechnic does not qualify for the disabled students' allowances because she is part-time. The voluntary organisation by which she is employed as an assistant youth worker can pay only her fees and she needs just under £4,000 to pay for an interpreter this year.
That means that deaf people are effectively doubly disadvantaged. It is more expensive for them to take a course and, if they are not funded, other organisations which raise money for the deaf have to divert money to support them. There is also a severe shortage of interpreters for the deaf throughout Britain. The director of the National Deaf Children's Society, Harry Cayton, told me that when he needs an interpreter for a meeting at his office it takes his secretary an average of 14 phone calls to find one. It must be borne in mind that deaf people do not have the same facility with the telephone as a hearing person.
Those examples show the problems that deaf people face. I shall not detain the House with other examples that the Royal National Institute for the Deaf gave me that show the shortfall in funding.
My Bill has all-party support and the backing of all the major organisations for deaf people—the RNID, the National Deaf Children's Society and the British Deaf Association. It would help in improving the role and aspirations of deaf people. When I meet deaf people abroad, it is a source of shame to me that Britain is regarded as the poor relation in providing facilities for deaf people.
I am glad that some of the campaigning has had an effect, which I acknowledge, but there is more to do. I pray in aid Professor Brian Palmer, who said in his lecture that, if my Bill
were enacted, it would largely achieve in legislation what is necessary to equalise opportunites for deaf people in post-school education.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this subject. I appreciate that, as the House is preparing to adjourn, many people may regard it as a narrow, esoteric issue that does not justify detaining the House, but the problems of many deaf people require urgent attention. I have been given examples of deaf people being accepted for courses of higher education and training who have experienced difficulty in keeping up or have been forced to drop out. Many others do not even try, because they know that, without support, they would not cope.
As many hon. Members will know, I have a direct personal interest, as my daughter, who is 14 and is profoundly deaf, may go on to further education in the

next two or three years. I am not making a special plea on her behalf, but because of her I have encountered so many other people who face this deprivation.
The Government have moved in the right direction, but they should take on board that the deaf community are not satisfied with the support they are receiving or the way in which the additional support that was recently offered is working. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science to ensure that more applications from deaf people for educational support are granted so that they meet the need for which they were intended, because that is not happening at present?

Mr. Conal Gregory: Before we rise for the Easter adjournment, I should like to mention the problems that are facing tourism, particularly following the crisis in the Gulf. Those problems present an opportunity for the Government to assist, perhaps as never before, those working in and dependent on tourism.
When agriculture experienced difficulties with BSE, the Government paid £587 compensation for each mad cow. In 1989, the last year for which statistics are available, each overseas visitor to the United Kingdom brought £397 into this country, yet I am afraid that the Government have given the British Tourist Authority a derisory £800,000 to promote the United Kingdom out of the tourism crisis. We are not giving good value to those who are employed in Britain's fastest-growing industry, and are risking the long-term future of tourism.
The position nationally and in York and Yorkshire is extremely worrying. I should declare an interest as the parliamentary consultant to Consort Hotels, which is based in my constituency and is the largest consortium of independent hoteliers in this country. It is appropriate that it keeps me in touch with developments.
I have calculated that as many as 20,000 jobs in tour operators, airlines and hotels could be lost, representing an estimated whole-year cost to the Treasury of £6,000 per job.
The knock-on effects of that on jobs in retail and other sectors have begun to show. Overseas earnings are very important but are often neglected when commentators consider invisible earnings. Of whole-year earnings of £8 billion, £700 million has been lost in the first quarter, and of £1·5 billion of earnings from the United States, we expect £500 million to be lost. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor must take into account the dramatic effect of that on tourism when he prepares the Budget for Tuesday. I should not be surprised by a year-end loss in earnings of £1·5 billion unless—this is the important opportunity for the Government—the Government support a major promotion of tourism.
Those who reside in London during the week are aware that 38 per cent. of London's theatregoers and 44 per cent. of people who attend London art galleries are overseas tourists. Sadly, the figures for the first three months of this year are down. The retail sector derives up to 20 per cent. of its income from overseas visitors, and the Treasury derives more than £60 from each visitor in value added tax.
The earnings and jobs of every constituency are affected by tourism. In Yorkshire, there has been a worrying fall in bookings by overseas visitors. Tour operators, hoteliers and coach companies have all received cancellations. But our message should he that Britain is a safe destination for


business travel or recreation. We have increased security at our airports, ferry terminals and railway stations. We must follow that with a high-profile marketing campaign targeted on north America, the far east and Australasia, so that we have not just quantity but quality of visitors.
Tourism is worth £14 billion in England and £994 million in Yorkshire and Humberside. Investment must continue. York has been fortunate in attracting new construction and venues such as the museum of automata, and other sites have been imaginatively developed. I would welcome my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to Fairfax house and the Yorkshire museum, both of which have been extensively developed in recent years. However, more hotels are being built in Paris than in London.
Too many local authorities are unsympathetic to tourism and will not carefully interpret planning applications which seek to turn former warehouses that are of no use into potential hotels.
Do the Hastings, Folkestones or Cliftonvilles have the infrastructure that we expect and see in Blackpool and Bournemouth? Sadly, they do not. Devolution from London to the regions will need a co-ordinated national campaign.
The Gulf crises will help in other respects. Many more British people will take short breaks not only in the delightful constituency of Norfolk, South—my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council was my Member of Parliament when I lived there—but in centres such as York. Given the strength of the United States dollar, we must look further afield. Anyone in Britain can enjoy our theatres and, except for "Phantom of the Opera", which I have been unable to see, can get into any London theatre. That is a very worrying development.
To achieve a boom in tourism, there must be a campaign. The uniform business rate is not helping small travel agents who wish to move from one site to another and sell their premises. The stepping-stone principle, which particularly affects the constituencies of City of Chester, Bath and York, effectively cripples the ability of small businesses to move, which is a great problem.
We must also abolish red tape. I commend my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for securing the removal of visa requirements for visitors from the United States and for those travelling from this country to North America. That improvement must spread to other countries. Far too many youngsters do not know on which continent a certain country is to be found. If they want to visit, for example, Aruba on a package holiday, they do not know on which continent it is to be found. I hope that before too long they will pass their GCSE in tourism—at the moment offered by only one examination board—and that they will then know where such places are. I hope that they will also learn to appreciate the benefits of tourism in the United Kingdom and the opportunities that this country provides for them.
All too often, a person who goes into a Chicago or Tokyo travel agency when considering booking a holiday in the United Kingdom does not receive correct information. If that person books his holiday with a particular airline, he may find that it is locked into a hotel group, which may result in him not visiting the United Kingdom. Paris is increasingly becoming the central

attraction for people coming to Europe. If they go to Paris —and shortly to Disneyland—will they then come to London and the rest of the United Kingdom?
Tourism is an international issue. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is unable to discuss it with the World Tourism Organisation. We are one of the very few developed countries that is not a member of the WTO, though I have yet to discover why. By the payment of a very small sum of money, we could have a major influence, in terms of British consultancies, on world tourism. The WTO is based in Madrid. It has master plans, apart from environmental issues which include blue tourism—a reference to safe beaches—and green tourism. If we are to have a major voice in world tourism, I hope that in due course my right hon. Friend will announce that this country intends to play a leading role in the World Tourism Organisation
We should place emphasis on attracting quality markets. We should not attempt to exert pressure on eastern European visitors to come here. Many coachloads of people already enter Venice with their packed lunches. Those many thousands of people use its public facilities and see some of the wonders of Venice, but they spend not a single lira there. That form of tourism would be an unwelcome development here, though it would be nice to see people from Poland, Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia coming to this country on "fam" trips, as they are termed, to visit friends and relatives.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will discuss with the Secretary of State for Transport the environmental problems that assail north American and Japanese visitors to this country. I refer in particular to coach parking. When the changing of the guard takes place at Buckingham palace, we see coaches there belching out diesel fumes. That is an improper use of coach facilities. Coach parking has been neglected, but that problem could be tackled if a Minister were to be given responsibility for tourism throughout the United Kingdom.
Junior members of the Government—usually in the other place—are responsible for tourism. I want elected Members of Parliament to be given that responsibility. They ought not to change their portfolio every 10 months or every year. They rush around at a great rate of knots, but by the time they have scoured the whole of their territory, they are promoted to another job.
The facilities available at our ports of entry are still poor. At our busiest port of entry, Dover, people have to find the road out of England en route for France if they want to visit the tourist information centre.
I could give many other examples, but I realise that this is not I April—All Fools day. Sadly, such examples ought more appropriately to be given on that day. People's jobs are at risk from such inefficiencies. I hope, therefore, that before Easter the Government will give a strong lead to this key industry, having recognised the jobs that depend upon it, and that, from Easter onwards, the tourist industry will enjoy a substantial revival.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The House of Commons ought not to rise for Easter until it has fully discussed the Gulf war. I do not intend to trespass on the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow


(Mr. Dalyell) will raise in the debate that he has secured. However, I wish to refer to a few consequences of the Gulf war.
For many families, the ending of the war has been marked this week by funerals, not least by the funerals yesterday in Coventry of two teenagers—Lee Thompson and Jason McFadden—who were killed in the Gulf war. Such deaths are deeply felt in Coventry and throughout the country. Those two teenagers will not be forgotten by their families, by their friends or by people in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) will, I know, want me to place on record the fact that we intend to ensure that the Ministry of Defence conducts a full public inquiry into the deaths of Lee and the other eight teenagers who, we were told euphemistically, died as a result of "friendly fire."
The war ended with light casualties on the allied side, and there is relief among people throughout the world that the war is over. However, that relief has been soured by growing realisation of the enormous number of deaths and the scale of destruction in Iraq. Some of us complained for many years about the vicious, repressive regime in Iraq. It imprisoned, tortured and murdered many tens of thousands of trade unionists, socialists, communists and sordinary people. However, Iraq has not been "liberated" by mass bombing on a scale that has not been seen for 50 years. According to information provided to me by the Library, during the 39 nights of allied bombing, half the tonnage of the bombs dropped on Europe during six years of war was dropped on Iraq.
Specific instances of that bombing ought to be examined. For example, 400 women and children were killed in the Al Amerieh bunker. That, too, has been euphemistically described—as "collateral damage". That number was surpassed by the thousands, perhaps tens of thousands who died in soft-topped lorries, cars and other vehicles at the Mutlaa gap on the road to Basra. Those people were retreating or fleeing from Kuwait. There was a seven-mile line of vehicles at that point. At about 12·40 pm on Monday last, there was a report on ITN, which I have not seen repeated, of a column 60 miles long north of Kuwait city. Tanks and armoured cars were reported to have been burnt out and no survivors were to be seen.
After 30 armies knocked seven bells out of Iraq, why are the Americans and everyone else still imposing sanctions on Iraq? What are they supposed to achieve? If the B52 planes that dropped the bulk of the 900,000 tonnes of bombs on Iraq did not achieve what their role in Vietnam was said to be—to knock that country back into the stone age—they certainly bombed Iraq back into the 19th century. There is little or no power and clean water, or health and emergency services. Raw sewage floats in the Tigris. Massive international relief must be organised for the country. Cholera, typhoid, hepatitis and polio outbreaks are already to be seen. Unless something is done quickly, they will reach epidemic proportions.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) announced on Tuesday that Britain is giving £420,000 —worth of aid to the International Red Cross. That compares with £3 billion spent on the war, and an estimated £50 billion to be spent on the restoration of Kuwait. One wonders how much of that will go on building palaces and luxury dwellings for the unelected al-Sabah dictatorship; I give the figures merely to put the amount of aid in its context.
For the people inside Iraq, the war has not stopped. The Iraqi intifada goes on—in the north in the Kurdish areas, and in the south and south-east of Shia areas. Saturday marks the third anniversary of Saddam Hussein bombing the village of Halabja, an incident in which 6,000 or 7,000 Kurds died when chemical weapons were used against them. In October that year several thousand marsh Arabs north of Basra died under the same chemical weapons. To the shame of our Government, within days of the second attack the present Secretary of State for Social Security, then in charge of trade and industry, announced an increase of £340 million in trade credits—almost as a reward—for the Saddam Hussein regime.
In the past 10 or 12 days, the eyes of the world may have been turned away from the affairs of Iraq. That is understandable perhaps given that, following the expulsion of many media personnel, it is becoming more difficult to see what is happening there, but a deliberate policy to leave Saddam Hussein in place is emerging. In The Guardian, a senior United States diplomat is quoted as saying:
Better the Saddam Hussein we know than an unwieldy weak coalition or a new strong man who is an unknown quantity.
It is, however, possible to get news of what is happening in Iraq. Today, for instance, I met people, including constituents, who are naturalised British citizens who originated from Iraq. They gave me two faxes from Iran dated yesterday. The first was an appeal from the people of Basra to everyone:
We are fighting for all Iraqis and for all humanity everywhere. We are in full control of Basra, but your families, children, brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers from Basra —they are in great need for food and medicines.
Much more follows in this handwritten fax.
The second fax is a letter from Mr. Hakim, head of the supreme command of the Islamic revolution in Iraq, a group based in Iran and fighting in the south of Iraq. The letter is addressed to Perez de Cuellar, head of the United Nations, and it speaks of the republican guard in Iraq —this has not been carried elsewhere, so it is news for those who will hear it—tying women and children on tanks and using them as human shields so that the Iraqi insurrectionists cannot defend what they have gained in Basra. According to that fax, in Basra's Sa'ad square, 45 resistance fighters have been executed, and in two areas outside Basra, chemical hand grenades have been used. Napalm has also been used and its victims have been taken to Iran for treatment for their injuries. So it is possible to find news from Iraq, given the will to do so.
Food, medicines, equipment and chemicals to purify water are all desperately and urgently needed. That is why I believe that sanctions should now be lifted by the British Government. My speeches on the subject in the past few months show that I have never agreed with sanctions, but no Member of this House can now defend their continued use against the ordinary people of Iraq.
I make only one exception to my view on sanctions, and it concerns the arms trade. A couple of weeks after the war ended articles in newspapers and television programmes have begun to claim that "showcase", "combat-proven" weapons used in the middle east are now on sale elsewhere. "Newsnight" carried an item yesterday which spoke of a possible $50 billion to $150 billion-worth of United States arms sales to the middle east. It is worth recording that half of all the oil wealth accumulated in the history of middle eastern oil extraction has been spent on battlefields.
For the millions of people in the region, let alone the hundreds of millions more close by in north Africa, that is a tale of misspent money, which could have been better used in other ways.
We need a full examination of the arms trade. Who armed Saddam in the first place? This House does not even have what the United States Congress has—a Javits amendment, under which arms sales of more than $7 million have to be reported to Congress. Had such a measure been in place in this country, the £12 million sale of lathes to churn out shell casings which went from Matrix Churchill, via Chile, to Iraq a couple of years ago would have been exposed. Had such a measure been in place, we could have questioned the Department of Trade and Industry when it allowed the same firm, Matrix Churchill, to be taken over by the Iraqi secret service three years ago. When sanctions were imposed, the Department allowed that firm almost to collapse. No one would trade with the firm given the uncertainty surrounding contracts with it, and more than 100 workers in Coventry lost their jobs because of the Government sanctions imposed on the firm.
Defence jobs have never been secure. There have been about 150,000 redundancies in the industry in the past 10 years. Workers at the Filton plant in Bristol must be worried that their plant may be threatened in the same way as Preston and other British Aerospace plants have been in the past couple of months. My party is beginning to come to grips with the issue. When we look into ending arms sales, we must parallel that activity by guaranteeing defence workers alternative jobs, through diversification, so that they and their families do not pay the price for the cuts in defence spending that we want. We should end arms sales to repressive regimes, and we should stop promoting arms.
In the meantime, we should ask why, in July 1979, days before Saddam Hussein was promoted from vice-president to president, Lord Carrington went to Iraq to sign deals. We should ask why, in October 1979, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), then a Trade Minister, was in Iraq doing business. We should ask why, in July 1981, the present Foreign Secretary was in Iraq selling arms—and why, after the war, the present Secretary of State for Social Security allowed Iraq more trade credit. Why did the Government sponsor the arms fair in Iraq, in Baghdad itself, in 1989—a fair which 13 British firms attended? Why, after 91 Opposition Members from six parties tabled an early-day motion opposing Government help for the fair, did not a single Tory Member sign it? Since 2 August we have been subjected to lectures suggesting that the Opposition support dictators because we opposed the war.
My final question is why, on 14 May in the national exhibition centre in Birmingham, there is to be a British arms fair of defence components and equipment. Countries no less repressive than Iraq are due to attend it—perhaps, for example, new-found "allies" of ours such as Syria, with its vicious police force; or old "allies", such as Indonesia, where 200,000 people—one third of the civilian population—have been murdered in East Timor since 1975. Perhaps such countries will show up for two or three days to buy equipment——

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Nellist: I am afraid that I do not have time.
I am against such exhibitions, as are many of my hon. Friends who have signed the early-day motion to that effect. It is not as though we are against war. We are not pacifists. Plenty of regimes in the middle east and elsewhere need toppling. To paraphrase the Prime Minister, I shall not shed any tears if the al-Sabah royal family goes, if all it promises to do is to restore the 1962 constitution which allowed only 8 per cent. of men, and no women, to vote. We did not go to war for freedom and democracy on that basis.
But there are wars to be fought—against poverty, ignorance and disease. One Tornado costs the same as 80 hospital wards, one Lynx helicopter costs the equivalent of 880 hip replacements, and one Warrior infantry fighting vehicle of the kind in which Lee Thompson and his eight teenage colleagues were killed by "friendly fire" costs the same as training 200 ambulance personnel
Before we rise for Easter, the House should debate the international trade in arms to repressive regimes, which must be stopped. The House should lift the sanctions that Britain is still imposing on Iraq. If we want peace and stability in the middle east, as I and my hon. Friends certainly do, it will come about only when democracy and socialism are brought to the people of those countries, allowing them to determine their own future. That has not happened through a war waged by 30 countries against Iraq; it will not happen as a result of the sanctions still being imposed on Iraq and the Iraqi people; and it will not happen if America is allowed to sell $50 billion to $100 billion-worth of arms to the middle east. Who will be next after Iraq goes down?

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am tempted to take issue with some of the arguments that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) advanced, but in the interest of brevity I shall not do so. The House will at least be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for underlining the appalling atrocities that are still being committed in Iraq. Many of us feel deeply unhappy that, although the war is over and, relieved though we are at that, that evil man, the butcher of Baghdad, remains in power. There will be no semblance of democracy or freedom and no semblance of humanity in that terribly torn country until that man has gone.
I wished to contribute briefly to the debate, because I wanted to give support to my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). We had a pact that whoever was called first would raise the subject, and whoever was called thereafter would endorse. I too wish to talk about the plight of the hostages. Over the past weeks, we have all been preoccupied with events in the middle east, and during that understandable preoccupation, we have not spent enough time, perhaps, discussing the fate of the three men—the four, if we add Mr. Cooper. Although Mr. Cooper is not strictly a hostage, he is held in similar and terrible circumstances.
I well remember attending a meeting organised by Christian Wives before Christmas 1986, when the guest of honour in Mr. Speaker's house was Terry Waite. It was a moving occasion, attended by Members and their wives of all parties. I think that everyone who met Mr. Waite and


listened to what he had to say was greatly impressed by what he had achieved and deeply troubled by the fact that he was returning to the middle east. He made it plain in his public remarks to those of us who were at the meeting, and privately to some of us afterwards, that he was returning with a sense of foreboding. We all know what happened. It is proper that, before the House rises for the Easter recess, we should remember that Terry Waite has been incarcerated since a few weeks after the meeting to which I have referred in Mr. Speaker's house. We should remember also that John McCarthy has been incarcerated for even longer, and that Jackie Mann has been incarcerated for about three years.
I am talking of three men who were guilty of no crimes, who have been sentenced without trial to the most appalling form of imprisonment. The events of the past few weeks have made us all conscious of the need to try to work for stability in the middle east. Although there has been a genuine and respectable difference of opinion in the House on what specific methods should be used, I believe that there is universal relief that the war is over, and a universal desire to see peace and stability in the middle east.
Peace and stability in the middle east demand various preconditions. One of those is that the countries of the middle east—this is why it is impossible to conceive of proper peace and stability while Saddam Hussein remains in power—should accept certain basic civilised values. I would like to think that, before the Easter recess, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will communicate specially—I know that he has done it many times before —with middle east ambassadors in the United Kingdom and with our representatives in the middle east to stress that it is incumbent upon us all to bring whatever pressure can be brought to bear upon those who hold the hostages.
We cannot move into a new era while people are allowed to behave like those who hold the hostages. I am not making any criticism of the Government's general stance; because I believe that they have been wholly right not to talk about deals. Terry Waite impressed upon us in his moving speech that, if he fell victim, he did not want deals to be done. He told us that he did not want his position to weaken the resolve of the west. The Government have been right not to do deals but as we move, perhaps, to a middle east peace conference, we must intensify the pressure upon all those who have any influence to recognise the uncivilised nature of those who hold the hostages.
I am sure that it is not very often that a Member of this place feels that he speaks for everyone who is present in the Chamber and for most of those who are not present, but I am sure that I speak for all those who are in their places now and for most of those who are not when I say that those outside who think that we have forgotten about the hostages are wrong. Those who think that the hostages are out of our minds are wrong. They are very much in our minds and on our minds. Many of us received special cards at Christmas that were sent by the friends of John McCarthy to remind us of the hostages. I say with great respect and understanding to those who sent the cards that it was a nice gesture, but we did not need reminding of the hostages in that sense.
Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster presided at a meeting in the House which was organised by a committee set up to secure the release of the hostages, of which he is a joint chairman and of which I am an officer.
Many hon. Members attended the meeting, although it was a day when we were not whipped and there was not heavy business in the House. Those who attended included the shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the foreign affairs spokesman of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Also present were many of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
We were brought together because we had one overriding concern, which was to see the three men and Mr. Cooper, reunited with their families. It must be understood that the families have gone through hell while not knowing but knowing at the same time. They have not known precisely what was happening, but they have known that their loved ones have been in darkness, with little or no opportunity for any dialogue. They know that they have been subject to the most intolerable pressures. We all learned that when Mr. Brian Keenan ceased to be a hostage last year. I am sure that we were all greatly moved by what he said.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will heed the message from my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster and myself. I hope that he will recognise also that we are speaking on behalf of colleagues of all parties in the House of Commons and for both Houses of Parliament in asking that everything possible should be done to intensify the pressure and to bring home to all parties in the middle east the fact that there can be no move towards a stable, secure and civilised middle east while those who behave in a barbaric manner are tolerated in any way.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I would echo everything that we have heard this evening about the hostages. It is tragic that they remain incarcerated and separated from their families. I hope that the hostages will be released before Easter. The problem for their relatives and friends is not knowing. It is not only those people who are in that position, because many thousands of people throughout the world have relatives in Iraq and have no knowledge of what is happening to them. Many of us have constituents who are in that position. It is to be hoped that all those who have friends and loved ones in Iraq about whom they have no information at present will receive that information as quickly as possible.
It is ridiculous that the House should go away for 18 days at Easter and an additional day for the spring bank holiday. I understand why the Government are keen to get us all away; there is so much ferment on their Benches and so much in-fighting in the Conservative party that they prefer to send hon. Members to their constituencies to simmer down. It is nonsense for the House to go away for 18 days when we should be getting to grips with so many important issues. For example, we should spend time trying to find a solution to homelessness. We should try to deal with the problems of people who are sleeping in the streets of London and the homeless within our constituencies.
It is ridiculous that we cannot have a proper debate to assess the military implications of what is happening in the Gulf. We should get to grips with the points stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr.


Nellist). We need a proper debate about arms sales and the whole question whether the middle east is to be re-armed. We should face up to the fact that we should be stopping arms sales to other countries and seeking alternative jobs for those involved in arms manufacture.
I would willingly give up all 18 days away from the House over Easter if we could have legislation to get rid of the poll tax and to put something else in its place. I am sure that all Opposition Members would willingly give up their time to deal with such legislation.
The House might debate less dramatic issues. I raised at business questions the reform of the procedure on private Bills. Again, I should have thought that it would be a good idea for the Leader of the House to give us only a week off at Easter and to devote one day to that subject.
I regret particularly that we shall not have a chance to debate satanic abuse and the cases that have appeared in the newspapers in recent weeks. I shall not deal with what has gone on in Nottingham, Rochdale or the Orkneys; I leave that to the hon. Members who represent those areas. Unless we have a proper debate on the matter, we shall find that the same problems will crop up elsewhere. I plead with the Leader of the House for an early opportunity to debate the Government's guidelines and to make sure that there is proper debate in the country on the whole issue of satanic abuse.
We should try to ensure that teachers and social workers put the issue into the context of the normal behaviour of normal children and into historic perspective in relation to the way in which such allegations have recurred century after century since Roman times. We should also learn from the witch persecutions of the middle ages. If there were to be a debate, I should want to emphasise that teachers, social workers and others should be aware of children's behaviour in relation to the telling of scare stories.
I am concerned that not enough parents, teachers and social workers understand the phenomenon. I have been aware of it as a parent and as a teacher. I have also had the opportunity to listen to a tape recording made by a folklorist of a group of children telling scare stories. Once an adult is involved, that changes the behaviour of the children, but it is important to understand that children tell scare stories.
As a child, I was conscious of the practice. I remember that, when I was about seven, a group of children used to congregate at every playtime in a corner of the playground to tell stories. The whole question was whether one had the courage to stop and listen or was too frightened and would run away during the telling of the story. Later, I was aware of a group of older girls telling similar stories, with young boys hanging around to listen to them. Later still, when I was in the scouts, I remember my first camp when scare stories were told until someone got upset.
Sometimes I still wake up at night, remembering a story that horrified me as a seven-year-old at the end of the war. People had in mind Hitler as a bogeyman. The story was that, to celebrate his birthday, he cut off children's fingers to stick on a birthday cake; then he lit the fingers and watched them burn away. That story was told, by older children to scare the younger ones. I remember other stories that the girls told about babies with two or three heads. In the scouts, we heard various ghost stories.
As the stories were being told, someone would say, "You must be kidding." That is an interesting phrase. Half the time the children knew that a story was being made up as the teller went along. When someone interjected, "You must be kidding," the other youngster would say, "No, I'm not. My brother told me." Very often, the child would call on a brother or an older person to justify the story. Most of us knew that the story was being made up, but some children were in the odd position of not knowing whether it was true. I suspect that horror films and videos come into the same category, between fantasy and reality.
The problem is that the moment an adult enters the scene, everything changes. If a child is so frightened by a story that he tells it to an adult, he is almost forced to believe the story and it ceases to be fantasy. Most children listen to the story and go away, but the odd one ends up repeating it to an adult. Once that happens, the danger is that the adult asks the child to justify it, and the child gets caught in a mechanism of trying to say that the story is true. He cannot admit that it was fantasy because, if it was fantasy, why should he be frightened by it? I make a plea to social workers, teachers and others to spend a little time considering how children normally tell horror stories and not to be taken in by the idea that behind the story there is reality rather than fantasy.
Social workers should bear in mind the way in which people have been writing recently about satanic abuse. I asked the Library to dig out for me all references to satanic abuse in a national daily newspaper over the last two or three years. I chose The Independent because I was aware that it had published quite a few articles. The computer produced well over 100 entries about satanic abuse. Having looked at the headlines, I got the impression that at the beginning the reporters on the whole believed the stories. As time went on, the accounts showed a growing disbelief among reporters. Eventually it became clear that that newspaper's reporters did not believe the stories.
I will not go through all the articles, but it is worth drawing attention to one which appeared on 13 January in The Independent on Sunday, by Rosie Waterhouse, on the spread of charismatic Christianity in Britain under the heading:
Hungry for Souls: The evangelicals are on the march—out of the church, down the corridors of power and on to the air waves. But is their fervour bringing with it a dangerous intolerance'?
Rosie Waterhouse observed:
Evangelical Christian groups are also largely responsible for spreading stories lat year that children were being sexually abused by satanists in black-magic ceremonies, and that teenage girls were being used as 'brood mares' to produce foetuses for sacrificial rites. No evidence in support of these allegations has been found by the police".
That seems to be a carefully worded reference to cases that were recently published in newspapers. The article concludes by suggesting that there was a conspiracy to put across such allegations.
The same allegations have appeared over many centuries in folk lore. They have particular resonance as traditional libels that were pinned on a variety of minorities by often powerful groups that the authorities or the Government of the day considered to be deviant, subversive, or otherwise dangerous. I recommend to any right hon. or hon. Member who takes an interest in the subject Norman Cohn's book, "Europe's Inner Demons".


He traces such accusations with great thoroughness. from Roman times to the present day, over 2,000 disgraceful years.
Norman Cohn's book points out that the early Christians and dissident Christian sects, Ca thars, Templars, and those persecuted for witchcraft in the middle ages were all accused in turn of engaging in orgiastic sex, baby killing, and cannibalism in the service of evil. Originally, those who followed the Christian Church were accused of such activities, but gradually that situation reversed, so that the Church came to accuse other groups. Descriptions of so-called satanic activities go back to the year 1000.
Century after century, the same allegations were made of satanic abuse, yet evidence was never produced to substantiate them. One thinks also of the blood libel legend, which was a regular element of anti-Semitic folk lore in medieval times. It appears in Chaucer's work., "The Prioress's Tale" and in the traditional ballad, "The Jew's Daughter". Blood libels have no sexual element, but sometimes involve cannibalism. In 1255, Jews in Lincoln who were the victims of blood libels had to be taken into protective custody against the mob.
I plead with social workers to be aware of the continuing retelling of such myths in presenting a particular point of view in society, as a means of criticising or attacking a particular group. Before we rise for the Easter recess, time should be found for a proper debate on satanic abuse, not only to help devise guidelines for the Government in dealing with such allegations, but so that when they are made, social workers also will have at the back of their minds the fact that it is a natural activity of children to fantasise and to manufacture scare stories, and that we try to force children to justify them at our peril.
Allegations of satanic abuse have endured for more than 2,000 years with no evidence to support them, but to persecute others either in trying to promote a particular religion or to suppress the beliefs of others. Before social workers are taken too far down the line of satanic abuse, they should see Arthur Miller's play, "The Crucible", which presents the background to the witch persecutions in Salem and elsewhere in the world. They will then realise how amazingly easy it is to persuade children to make allegations that have no basis in fact. I urge the House to debate the whole question of child abuse, and of satanic abuse in particular, at an early stage.

Mr. Keith Raffan: I want to raise an issue that affects more than 400 of my constituents—the fact that permanent residents living on seasonal caravan sites are liable to value added tax on caravan pitch rentals. I have raised this issue with successive Treasury Ministers over the past four years. I did so first with my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, then Economic Secretary to the Treasury; then with my right hon. and noble Friend Lord 'Caithness, now Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but formerly Paymaster General; with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), when he was Paymaster General; and with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), the Minister of State, Treasury now responsible for such matters.
Their replies have a depressing similarity, which bears the imprint more of civil service minds than of independence of mind. However, that has not prevented each of them from being promoted to higher office—probably leaving them greatly relieved that they did not have to deal further with my representations. In case my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House feels that I am picking on him, I may point out that he is the sole remaining Member for a Norfolk constituency to whom I have not presented my case. I do so now, in the hope that I will be third time lucky.
Three years ago, the Government decided to introduce VAT on seasonal caravan pitches to bring them into line with other holiday accommodation and services provided by the tourist trade. It was never the Government's intention that VAT should apply to residential caravan owners. They wanted and meant them to retain relief from VAT, in line with that extended to other permanent domestic accommodation. As the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans, wrote to me on 27 June 1989:
I should emphasise that VAT is only being applied to seasonal caravan pitch rentals which, because of the seasonal nature of the site, can only be used for holiday or recreational purposes. VAT will not be charged on pitch rentals where the caravans can be occupied as the owner's permanent residence, i.e. where it can be lawfully occupied throughout the year.
However, that is exactly what happens.
Seasonal sites can be, and frequently are, used by those whose caravans are their sole permanent residence. The problem arose because the Government decided that the sole and most equitable yardstick for those liable to VAT was the nature of the licence granted to the park owner —that is, whether the site was licensed as seasonal or permanent.
VAT legislation was drawn deliberately to apply to all pitch rentals at seasonal sites, without regard to the precise length of the season or the personal circumstances of individual caravan owners. It also assumed that all permanent residential caravan owners would seek the protection afforded by the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and choose to live on sites licensed under that legislation, specifically designed to accommodate them. In fact, many permanent residents do not have that choice.
In my own constituency, only one site offers permanent pitches for permanent residents who number just 40. In fact, 387 of my constituents are distributed among just three caravan parks—Talacre Beach, Willow Grove, and Point of Ayr—and a few others are spread throughout smaller sites in the area. They would all prefer to live on a permanent site, but none is available.
Talacre Beach caravan park has about 120 to 130 permanent residents, but it is not currently licensed as a permanent site, and must close for about eight weeks each year. That means that the permanent residents can lawfully stay on that site only for about 10 months. In midwinter they have to move to temporary accommodation—this year it was from 5 January to 2 March—which is usually in bedsits or flats in neighbouring towns, such as Rhyl. They frequently have to pay high rents for accommodation—£80 or more. They would also certainly rather not move out of their permanent homes to the seaside in the worst possible weather, when no one else is there. Most of them are retired, many are pensioners and none of them is well off. The Government are aware of the position, but are not prepared to make permanent residents of seasonal caravan parks a special case.
On 6 March, my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, who was then Paymaster General, wrote to me saying:
It is our understanding that seasonal sites are not designed or intended for use by residents as their sole home, although clearly this does happen.
Indeed it does. It happens to more than 400 of my constituents.
There must be many other constituencies throughout the country, especially those in tourist areas, where this problem occurs. My constituency is predominantly industrial and is on the edge of the so-called north Wales tourist belt. The problem is even more severe in many other constituencies. Thousands of people must therefore be affected throughout the country.
The Government must reframe the law to take caravan owners' individual circumstances into consideration. VAT liability should depend upon the personal circumstances of each caravan owner and not on the planning status of the park.
The Government say that that would cause considerable extra administrative and accounting burdens for park proprietors. I have spoken to many of them in my constituency, and they disagree. Most of the parks are computerised, and proprietors would not have to spend an inordinate amount of extra time dealing with these problems. All the proprietors I have spoken to say that they would be glad to do so.
The Government say that there is a verification problem. Again, park proprietors disagree. They know the residents. They know who are permanent residents, and they know immediately when their circumstances change. Most of these caravan parks are not large, few containing more than several hundred people. The caravan park proprietor and his staff keep close tabs on what is going on within the park, and know immediately if someone ceases to reside there—they certainly know within 24 hours. They can produce lists immediately from their computers to show which people are permanent residents. I am talking about small businesses, not large ones.
The Government say that if they were to change the law and to reframe it to take each caravan owner's personal circumstances into account it would lead to a "plethora of anomalies". Again, park proprietors disagree. They think that anomalies and unfairnesses exist at the moment and they want them to be corrected.
Finally, the Government say that park proprietors
have a right to expect clear, workable guidelines.
All the park proprietors I have spoken to would say, "Hear, hear" to that. They do not think that the guidelines are workable at the moment, nor do they think that they are fair.
The Government are wrong to say that it is "impracticable" and "totally unworkable" to grant VAT relief to caravan owners who make seasonal sites their only home.
In conclusion, I quote my right hon. and noble Friend the Earl of Caithness, who said in his letter of 6 March:
It is the intention with any taxation system to implement it fairly and impartially whilst giving full regard to any potential injustices which might arise from it.
As I have shown to the House, the injustices are not potential but actual. The Government may intend to have a fair and impartial taxation system, but that is not the reality in this case. They are certainly not giving full regard

to this injustice—they are not even giving partial regard to it. More than 400 of my constituents are affected. The local economy of my constituency is not based on tourism. How many more people must be affected in neighbouring constituencies along the north Wales coast, or along the south coast of England and in tourist areas in other parts of the country? I am sure that the problem also exists in the county in which the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is situated.
Many people are affected by this unfairness, by this injustice. Most of them are retired, many are pensioners and none of them is well off. The Government must redress this injustice. I am not over-hopeful that they will do so immediately. Having spent two years shelving it in correspondence with me, it is probably too much to ask the Government to redress it before Easter. Although, technically, those are the terms of this debate, I shall not insist upon that, but will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House bring this matter once again to the attention of the Treasury?
In a recent notable speech in Bonn, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quoted—I think it was the only Conservative he quoted—his hero and mine, that great Conservative the late Iain Macleod, when he spoke of creating a society
more efficient, more tolerant and more just.
The VAT law is unjust to these people. I ask the Government to correct that injustice.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I thought that the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) about Iraq was tremendously moving. He revealed the massive suffering which has occurred because of the bombing and the war that has taken place in the Gulf, and he stressed the terrible problems of disease, further destruction and destabilisation that still exist in the area.
I feel especially affected by the devastation that has occurred in Basra, which is where I did my national service for most of 1955 and 1956. The sons, daughters and grandchildren of the people I mixed with during that period are among those who have gone through tremendous devastation and destruction.
I wish to deal with the poll tax and electoral registration. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that nothing is ruled out and nothing is ruled in in the review of the poll tax, but that does not seem to apply to me. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 10 January, asking for an opportunity to discuss the problems of electoral registration and the community charge. Finally, the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) replied:
I regret that diary pressures prevent a meeting at the present time.
So I have been ruled out, or perhaps the issue begins to be considered as nothing.
I am prepared to meet the Secretary of State, or anyone else within that office, to discuss the key item of electoral registration and the impact that the poll tax has had upon it. Hon. Members should be tremendously worried about that issue.
The community charge undermines the operation of the Representation of the People Act 1983—certainly de facto, and perhaps even de jure. I must also point out that the 1983 Act has a higher legal status than the Local


Government Finance Act 1987 which introduced the community charge; the 1983 Act should be considered as the prior piece of legislation dealing with these matters.
I feel that it is hon. Members' duty to consider this matter closely, and it is the duty of the Secretary of State and of the Government to consider the electoral consequences and franchise consequences of what they have been up to in the past few years, during this review.
The evidence that the Representation of the People Act 1983 is undermined is contained in the Local Government Finance Act 1987. The exemptions from the poll tax register and the electoral register are almost similar. For instance, certain handicapped people are excluded from electoral registration and from poll tax registration—the severely mentally handicapped. Physically handicapped people appear on both registers. They are not excluded from the poll tax register, although they may be badly in need of financial assistance. Their condition is not taken into account, because they are entitled—rightly—to exercise their franchise. Certain concessions have been made—for instance, to monks and nuns—but in general the two registers are almost interchangeable. Some people will be listed on different registers; students may be on the electoral register in one area and on the poll tax register in another.
The other problem relates to the much-vaunted principle of accountability—the principle that everyone living in the same district must pay the same, except those who receive rebates. There is a danger that other legislation will also include that principle, even if smaller payments are involved. One of the worst aspects of the poll tax legislation is the fact that it covers everyone. That does not apply to other forms of taxation.
Obviously, people who find it desperately difficult to pay the poll tax will duck for cover. There is evidence that attainers—those who are about to appear on the register for the first time—are disappearing in large numbers. The fact that those who avoid poll tax will also avoid electoral registration should worry a House of Commons that prides itself on its involvement in the extension of the franchise, and in the battles over the great Reform Acts of the 19th century and the extension of the franchise to women in the 20th.
I am not talking only about theoretical evidence there is increasing evidence of a link between electoral and poll tax registration. According to a circular issued by the Home Office to electoral registration officers on 10 August 1990, people will be removed from the electoral register if they have not yet registered, and if their names cannot be found on the community charge register. That is surely a clear recognition by the Government of the connection between the two.
The Census (Confidentiality) Act 1991 provides, reasonably, that census information cannot be used by poll tax registrars. The aim is to protect the census, but we should be equally anxious—if not far more so—to protect the franchise. Both should be protected, because both are necessary in society; but the franchise has an additional constitutional importance.
The Caldey Island Act 1990 highlighted the exclusion of monks and fishermen on the island from either register. The statistical evidence backs up the evidence in section after section of that Act of a connection between the two registers. In the Finchley constituency, for instance.. there has been a reduction of 8·5 per cent. in the franchise over two years; over the same period, some 600,000 people have

disappeared from the electoral registers in England, Scotland and Wales. That takes into account the number of people aged over 18. There has been no such development in Northern Ireland, which has no poll tax.
I believe that the undermining of the 1983 Act is illegitimate. The Act has an important constitutional status. We have no written constitution, but it is generally recognised by a host of constitutional authorities that certain measures have such status. If time permitted, I could quote such authorities as Dicey, Blackstone and De Smith, but I shall content myself with a reference to the Statute of Westminster, the First. That 1275 statute says:
because Elections ought to be free, the King commandeth upon great Forfeiture, that no Man by Force of Arms, nor by Malice, or menacing, shall disturb any to make free Election.
The statute does not say who should have the vote, but it establishes the importance of free elections under sovereign authority. Such statutes were used by constitutional authorities such as the 18th-century Blackstone to establish the significance of electoral provision as a cornerstone of the British constitution.
That cornerstone is under serious attack from a measure that should be repealed. I have been refused the right to meet the Secretary of State for the Environment; I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will convey to him what I have said tonight, which should be taken into account in any review of the poll tax. If we are to re-establish and protect the full franchise, the poll tax must go.

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this evening, Independent Television News reported that the Prime Minister had made a statement in the House to the effect that the poll tax was to be abolished. It is a simple matter of fact that no such statement was made. This may be no more than misreporting by ITN; but reports that a decision has indeed been reached, and that it is a decision to abolish the poll tax, are being carried this evening by the BBC, and also by some of tomorrow morning's newspapers.
What appears to have happened is this. The Prime Minister had intended to make a statement during Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon, but failed to do so. The obvious explanation is that he had so little confidence in what he had to say that he funked it. He says that no one asked him the right question—notwithstanding the fact that he was asked, on the first question, whether he believed that the poll tax would endure. The statement that he had intended to make was, however, issued in his name later in the afternoon. That statement, of which we have a copy, makes it clear that no decision has yet been reached.
This is the position. The Prime Minister did not make a statement, and the statement that he did not make does not mention any decision to abolish the poll tax. Nevertheless, Lobby and other journalists have been briefed to that effect. A Prime Minister who was too frightened of the House, his own party and of the country to make the statement in his own name has nevertheless found a behind-the-stairs way of making a statement which goes well beyond the statement that he was too frightened to make to the House. If a decision has been made on the most pressing political issue of the day, should it not be made to the House by a Prime Minister prepared to defend it?
If the Prime Minister's explanation of his failure this afternoon to make a statement is that no one asked him the


right question, I am glad to remedy that deficiency right now. Will he now come to the House and answer the many pressing questions about the decision that he claims to have taken?
If the Prime Minister continues to duck and weave, if he continues to refuse to face the House, is this not a fittingly disreputable and cowardly end to the whole disreputable saga of the poll tax? If the Prime Minister has at last nerved himself to take a decision that the poll tax must go, why will he not have the courage to come to the House and face the music?
Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, inquire whether a statement is now to be made either by the Prime Minister or by a senior Minister—the Leader of the House is present—so that the House is not treated in this contemptuous way, so that the people of this country are offered both an explanation and an apology, and so that the Prime Minister can at least explain whether it was a lack of honesty or a lack of nerve which led to that disreputable subterfuge?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I was almost inclined to say that it was a contemptuous abuse of those of us who have been engaging in a debate in the House, because it really is a tortuous question that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has raised. However, in view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I will make the position absolutely plain.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may often have the opportunity to say many things at Prime Minister's questions if he is asked particular questions and if he has the time to do so, so there is absolutely nothing significant in that whatever. I made our present position on the community charge clear in business questions. I made it quite clear this afternoon—this is what I think is the guidance that has been given—that the Prime Minister chaired a meeting of ministerial colleagues this morning, that he will chair a further meeting of ministerial colleagues next week, that the committee's conclusions will need to go to the full Cabinet and that we will announce our proposals after that.
Because I have been in the Chamber all afternoon, I have not seen what has been on the news bulletins tonight, but if they are saying either that the Prime Minister has made a statement to the effect that the poll tax is being abolished or that authoritative sources are saying so, I can say that there is no truth in that at all. The Prime Minister has not made such a statement, and nor have authoritative sources.
We seek to achieve proposals which are fair, which will not impose undue burdens on local taxpayers and which will provide a practical and lasting basis for the relationship between central and local government.
I think that I have made the position absolutely clear, and that we should not proceed further with this point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are in the middle of a debate in which other hon. Members want to take part.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): We must now resume the debate. It is quite irregular——

Mr. Gould: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman in a minute. I remind hon. Members that we are cutting into valuable private Members' time. I deliberately allowed much more flexibility than I would normally allow on points of order.

Mr. Gould: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not detain the House long. We have at least established, with regard to the reports based on briefing of Lobby journalists—and there is no question that that has happened, because all the radio and television journalists and the reporters for The Timesand other newspapers have told the same story—we have now had it on the authority of the Leader of the House that the briefing is to be withdrawn and is inaccurate. If we are now to be told that no decision has been taken and the poll tax survives for the time being, we can at least establish that the House still awaits a statement from the Government —from the Prime Minister—when it is taken, on when the poll tax is to be abolished.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now resume the debate.

Mr. David Amess: It is outrageous and an abuse of our procedure, when I and other hon. Members have sat here waiting to make speeches, for Opposition Members to produce that sort of pantomime. Perhaps we can now return to the Easter Adjournment debate.
There are three brief constituency points that I hope the House will consider before we adjourn for the Easter recess. The first is what I describe as the protection of the consumer from unfair and misleading timeshare promotion schemes. Many hon. Members will have received complaints from their constituents about unsolicited mail, but I think that the present level of letters coming through our doors bearing American postmarks and inviting us to attend timeshare promotion schemes has got out of hand, and many of my constituents have made representations to me.
My wife and I have been invited to three such schemes. We are very lucky people. The first letter told us that we are category A winners and that we have won either a Volvo sports car, an Electra sport boat with outboard motor or £2,000 in cash. The next piece of mail told me that I have won a 1991 Ford Escort or a Bahamas cruise or £1,000 in cash. The third, which arrived this morning, tells me that I am a gold card winner and that I have won either a Ford Fiesta or an Electra sport boat. What on earth my wife and I will do with all these electric motor boats I do not know. Perhaps we will be able to sell them off Southend pier.
On a more serious note, my wife and I responded to one of these invitations, which told us that we had both won cars. I telephoned the company to find out if that was the case. I then engaged the company in correspondence and we received the following reply—I shall not mention the company's name on this occasion—
I was very surprised to learn you went as far as discussing what colour Fiesta you and your wife would choose and how excited your household were on the morning that you received the letters. I did however detect a certain tongue-in-cheek tone and if you were truly under the impression that you have both won Ford Fiestas, which I seriously doubt, I should bring to your attention two main points included in the letter
in very tiny print, of course—


Firstly, the opening line begins 'If you bring the number' and, secondly, in the sentence below the first box section, it clearly indicates that this is an illustration.
What utter nonsense. Many of my constituents and, I am sure, other constituents represented by hon. Members are deliberately being misled by these promotions.

Mr. Cormack: Name the company.

Mr. Amess: At the end of the letter, it says that if one wants evidence from some of these so-called winners one should telephone them. When I asked for the telephone numbers of these individuals I was told,
You request finally to take advantage of my offer of contacting Mr. Noakes and Mrs. Aspinall. This is purely a figure of speech, but if the purpose of contacting them is to verify whether or not they were genuinely awarded motor cars, I can assure you that written and photographic evidence has been submitted to the Office of Fair Trading and the Advertising Standards Authority.
I have two other brief points to make and do not want to deprive other hon. Members of the opportunity of taking part in the debate, but——

Mr. Cormack: Name the company.

Mr. Amess: I am applying for an Adjournment debate, and on that occasion I may very well seek to name the company.
My second point is about hospital radio broadcasting. I have the honour to be the unpaid spokesman for Hospital Broadcasting. There are 312 hospital radio outlets throughout the country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) has an excellent radio at his hospital, and I have an excellent one in Basildon. It is the largest national charity to possess no paid workers and the third largest radio network after the BBC and the independents. The therapeutic effect of hospital radio broadcasting is proven.
I plead with my right hon. Friend to pass a message to our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that when he comes to the Dispatch Box next Tuesday, he should say that he will treat hospital radio broadcasting in exactly the same way as he treats talking books for the blind and zero-rate hospital radio broadcasting equipment for VAT. That would mean an enormous saving to voluntary bodies. Currently, the organisers of hospital radio are having discussons with the IBA in the hope of obtaining a separate frequency. I hope that they will make good progress.
My final point relates to dyslexia. I understand that as a five-year-old I was unable to communicate with my peers. My class teacher pointed out that I had special learning difficulties, and I had speech therapy for three years—"How now brown cow," and so on. Dyslexia is a problem which concerns many of my constituents. The Department of Education and Science categorically recognises dyslexia but, sadly, Essex county council does not believe that it exists. It has no clear policy for helping children who suffer from word blindness. It will accept only that there may be learning difficulties. Many of my constituents came to my previous surgery and expressed concern about that.
I am happy to say that this Saturday we are launching the Basildon dyslexia association. The Government are encouraging county councils to provide special tuition for dyslexic children, so it is not their fault that it is not provided in Essex. We intend to lobby Essex county

council until we obtain a centre of excellence within the Basildon constituency to help those children identified as suffering from dyslexia.

Mr. Allen McKay: I wish to bring the debate back to the subject of local government finance, and in particular to local government finance in my area. I do not think that the House should adjourn until the question of the poll tax is settled. The issue concerns many people in many ways. I make no apology for speaking emotionally about the poll tax, because it is a broadly based tax that affects people in different ways in different areas, depending on how they live, where they live, and what they live in. It is a more complicated problem than is generally realised.
My local authority has, once again, been capped, and quite unfairly. When the Secretary of State announced the criteria for poll tax capping, my authority complied with them and set a figure just below the capping level. Before that, the Department of Transport was considering a light railway system for Sheffield. The fact that there is a South Yorkshire transport executive affects the finances for the whole of south Yorkshire, which includes Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster. My authority was assured that the provision of a light railway system would not be taken into account for poll tax capping. It came as a complete surprise when my authority was capped, and especially as the reason was the expenditure on the light railway system in Sheffield. It had nothing to do with Barnsley, which simply happened to be the clearing station for the method by which local government finance was determined for the light railway system.
My authority is now faced with deciding between whether to try to save £368,000 in its budget or to say no to the light railway system—a system that the Department of Transport wants and that is essential for Sheffield. I have made my feelings clear. I could not justify to my constituents the closure of six schools so that £368,000 could be spent on a light railway system. I could not persuade them of the justice of so doing. The issue must be examined quickly and clearly.
If the Department of Transport wants the light railway system to proceed, it must remove it from the capping criteria. I have discussed the matter with my colleagues who represent Doncaster, and they are of the same opinion. Of course, the problem is one for local government, not for us, but I felt it necessary to make my position clear, because I have to justify what happens to my constituents. Barnsley has not built a nursery school for five years, simply because finance has not been available. It closed schools in the last session, and it is closing schools this session. In no way can I justify the expenditure of £368,000 on a light railway system.
I want the Government carefully to consider what is happening to Barnsley and Doncaster. We would love Sheffield to have its light railway system—it would be opportune for the world student games. Sheffield is a neighbour in many, many ways, and my local authority will have to consider the matter very carefully. There is need for a light railway system, and that need has been accepted by the Department of Transport because it has approved the finances for it.
The problem is not just that my authority has to find £368,000 this year; the light railway system is a


multi-million pound project. It will affect us not just this year, but next year and the year after. I do not believe that my local authority can go along with that, although that is for it to decide. It will have to reconsider its budget. Before it does so, the Government should think carefully about the way that it is being treated. My authority has been unfairly dealt with, and unfairly and unwisely advised. The assurances given by the Department of Transport have not been honoured, and matters look bad for my authority.
We must consider the whole system of local government finance. I hope that, as has been rumoured this evening, the poll tax is to be abolished, but we will have to wait a week before we have the official verdict. We must examine what has happened to local government finance since 1979, why it has happened, and what system should be introduced. There has been a war between central and local government. They have battled about finance since 1979. Central Government grant to local government has been reduced from 79 per cent. to about 35 per cent. That is why local government is in trouble.
We must ask why that has happened. The only reason is that the Government realised that the majority of local government was Labour-controlled. They felt that if they could turn the blame towards local government and local councillors—which they unfairly tried to do—the local populations would get rid of their authorities. In fact, that did not happen. The local people rumbled what was happening and wisely said to the Government, "Not on your Nellie. We will vote for the authority we want, for the councillors we want, and for the policies we want." It is the local people who, since 1979, have said no to the Government. That is why the Government introduced the poll tax. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), was shooting from the hip. She said, "Get rid of high rates," rather than trying to find out the cause of those high rates. That is why the Government quickly introduced the poll tax.
I attended the first sitting of the Commitee that considered the poll tax legislation. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was taking the Bill through the House. We told him that it was a silly mistake, and that the Government did not realise what they were doing. Conservative Members know that we warned the Government at that time. We asked the right hon. Gentleman to abandon the Bill and, instead, to put our heads together to find a system for local government finance that would not have to be changed year after year. We wanted a system that would last for decades.
We wanted to keep the old system. We wanted to identify the anomalies and remove them without throwing the baby out with the bath water. The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury decided arrogantly that the poll tax was the Government's flagship and that they would go ahead with it. Once the Government had the poll tax around their neck, they realised that they were wrong and they decided that they had to get rid of it. The Government will have to eat humble pie. They must recognise that they have made a mistake.
The Government must also recognise that there is merit in the argument that everyone must pay according to his or her ability to pay. Clearly the poll tax is not based on the ability to pay. If we accept and recognise that local

government is right and central Government are wrong, that the poll tax is wrong and that there is merit in asking everyone who has the ability to pay to do so, we can put our heads together once the political aspect has been removed and find a sensible way to finance local government.
Central Government must be big enough to say that they were wrong. They must say that the poll tax should not have been introduced and that they will get rid of it. We must then introduce a different system to finance local government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Before we adjourn for the Easter recess, I want to raise an issue of great concern to a major community in my constituency—the Sikh community of Gravesend and Northfleet.
My constituents are becoming increasingly anxious about the rising tide of violence and disorder in their homeland of the Punjab. The House will recall that at the time of independence for the sub-continent, it provided for a Muslim state of Pakistan and for an independent India for the Hindus, Sikhs and other minorities. At the time of independence, the Sikh leaders acquiesced to that arrangement following solemn assurances by Nehru and his associates.
In practice, as soon as India became independent, the majority Congress party broke all its promises of justice and equality made to the Sikhs before independence. The two Sikh representatives to the Indian constitutional convention refused to sign the final draft of the constitution because it contained no guarantee of the rights of minorities. In the Indian constitution today, the Sikh religion is not recognised, whereas Hinduism and Islam are.
The province of Punjab saw two new Hindu-dominated provinces hived off it—the provinces of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. The residual state of Punjab no longer has its own Government and is subject to direct rule from Delhi. That has led to a bottling up of Punjabi political pressures. Inevitably, some argue that the only solution is secession from the republic through the creation of an independent Sikh state of Khalistan. Both the Khalistan campaigners and the moderate Sikhs, the latter who want only their human rights and to live in peace and prosperity that they are more than capable of creating for themselves, have no democratic outlets for their views. Their views are repressed within the Punjab.
The House will appreciate that that has led to political unrest, protest, reaction, violence and repression. In Britain we were shocked in 1984 by the terrible violence and desecration at the Sikhs' most holy shrine the Golden Temple at Amritsar. Subsequent events, the violence, murders, emergency laws and detentions without trial have resulted in a torrent of reports of infringements of human rights about which the human rights groups in the House has heard. Those infringements bring shame on the republic of India which prides itself on being the world's largest democracy.
The Punjab has traditionally been the bread basket of India. In recent years wheat production in the Punjab has doubled and doubled again. The province is potentially very prosperous and its Sikh population has been


described as the Scots of India. How sad it is that that land is being stalked by the spectres of death, fear and extortion.
On 5 January, The Economist reported:
The death toll in Punjab was almost 4,500 in 1990, the highest for any year. Not all killings should be blamed on the militants or police. With the breakdown of the administration, crime syndicates have come up in a big way.
The Punjab needs its own representative legislative assembly which can give democratic expression to its people and appoint its own chief Minister and Government. In particular, it needs law and order. The present rule of gun law must be ended. The militants and the Government must call a halt to the carnage.
The Indian Government must accept that things cannot proceed as they are and that they cannot achieve anything on current trends. The brutality of the police and armed forces is achieving nothing. They are alienating the civil population by providing no protection to the law-abiding citizen and by condoning, and in some instances participating in, murder, rape and intimidation.
The Government of India must also show some concern for the police force. As The Economist reports:
The police are demoralised. They unofficially pay bounties to armed freelances willing to take on the terrorists. Officially, any youngster willing to wield a gun can join a police team for 30 rupees"—
less than £1—
a day. Unfortunately, many youngsters disappear with their guns, and some have joined the militants.
The republic of India is to hold another general election in May. I hope that the new Indian Government will learn the bitter lessons of the Punjab's recent history and restore to the state its representative legislative assembly which is a member of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and restore to its long-suffering people law and order and a respect for human rights.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will ensure that those hopes are endorsed and transmitted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the incoming Indian Prime Minister.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On 24 July 1986, I asked 17 specific questions about the forensic evidence of Dr. Skuse in relation to the Birmingham pub bombings. This is not the occasion to pursue that matter, although I sometimes wish that speeches in this place were examined more carefully. The proper thing for me to do is to submit evidence to Lord Runciman and Sir John May in their royal commission inquiry, and I shall do that.
The point, about which I have given notice, that I want to raise with the Leader of the House concerns the bombing on the Basra road. I became concerned about this when I read the news tape which stated:
"WARPLANES SWOOP ON FLEEING IRAQIS
American warplanes swooped on Iraqi forces streaming `bumper to bumper' north from Kuwait City today picking them off with cluster bombs and other weapons, pilots on the US aircraft carrier Ranger reported.
'It looks like the Iraqis are moving out and we're hitting them hard. It's not going to take too many more days until there's nothing left of them,' Captain Ernest Christensen told pool reporters aboard the carrier.
The pilots said the Iraqis were fleeing north towards the city of Basra in southern Iraq, presenting a bounty of targets for A-6 Intruders and other war planes.
Huge B-52 bombers were also dropping 1,000-lb bombs on the highways north of Kuwait City, they added.

`We hit the jackpot,' one pilot said.
Captain Christensen described Iraqi movements as both 'a withdrawal and a retreat'.
I genuinely asked questions about that instead of jumping to conclusions. However, on 7 March the Prime Minister said:
Allied forces had instructions to attack retreating Iraqi units which could continue to pose a threat. We have no information on casualties sustained in these attacks."—[Official Report, 7 March 1991; Vol. 187 c. 247.]
That needs amplification before the House goes into recess.
In the Gulf war, there were 131 allied dead, an estimated 2,000 people were killed in Kuwait and 150,000 Iraqis were killed. To find an equivalent imbalance, one must go back to the Conquistadores. A large percentage of those people were killed in the land war launched by Washington after Iraq had agreed, in Moscow, to an unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait.
Colin Hughes spoke of
the glee with which American pilots returning their carriers spoke of the 'duck shoot' presented by columns of retreating Iraqis from Kuwait city.
That troubles many of us. The American pilots used Rockeye cluster bombs, which dispersed 247 bomblets containing needle-sharp shrapnel designed for soft targets —people. Their targets included many contract workers from the Indian subcontinent—that was discovered from the nature of their luggage—who had no air cover. Did allied aeroplanes deliberately bomb people who were running away on the road to Basra? That question is also asked by the Kuwaitis.
I am indebted to Dr. Stephen Pullger for bringing to my attention a quote by Martyn Lewis, a BBC presenter, who said:
The Kuwaitis fear that many of the hostages taken from Kuwait by retreating Iraqi troops may have died in Allied air attacks. Hundreds of the vehicles they used were trapped and bombed at the Mutla Gap as they poured out of Kuwait City, heading north on the main road to Basra.
A reporter, Michael MacMillan, was filmed on location as saying:
About an hour's road journey out of Kuwait City and heading north, the A1-Mutla Gap is where the Iraqi Army came to a standstill, paralysed by a relentless Allied air offensive.
What concerns the Kuwaitis is that buses like these had been used in the round up of people from Kuwait in the last three days of the Iraqi occupation.
I shall not read many of the other current reports in my possession.
I am not the only person asking such questions. Sir Michael Howard, former professor of the history of war at Oxford and now professor of modern history at Yale, said in The Times:
Ever since the first world war, our primary concern has been to minimise our own casualties by using superior technology and industrial power to inflict crushing losses on our opponents—including their non-combatant populations.
Apparently, Sir Michael Howard is among those concerned by the bombing. The consequences of the bombing—not merely probable but certain from the outset—were the opposite of proportional or utilitarian behaviour, even in the context of war.
One of the cruellest ironies of the conflict is that as many Kuwaitis may have died in this grotesque carnage of the allied bombing of that retreating army on the road to Basra as died at the hands of their Iraqi abductors. Would


anyone, on either Front Bench, care to justify the proportionality, logic, necessity or morality of that massacre?
Ruth Wishart wrote a moving article in The Scotsman, entitled "Ashamed of war's offensive aspects" in which she said:
I am ashamed of how we have been led to behave in the past 48 hours, and I am ashamed that we no longer appear capable of independent thought. Surely the answer to atrocities and war crimes is to bring to justice the perpetrators, not indiscriminate, wholesale slaughter.
That is how it looks. Why were B52 bombers used by generals said to be devoted to pinpoint bombing? They laid mile upon mile of carpets of death. Pilots who dropped high explosives through clouds from 20,000 ft were, on one air force reckoning, achieving "circular error probability" of one or two miles. That means that only half their bombs could fall in that radius.
I refer to a moving letter in The Timesfrom Alison Buirski, who said:
There is much talk about Saddam Hussein using civilian buildings, such as schools, for military purposes. I recollect with horror my own experience during the Second World War. At the end of 1943 in West London, I gave birth to my first child in Queen Charlotte's Maternity Hospital, Hammersmith, across the road from where we lived.
My baby was barely four-weeks-old when suddenly the area was subjected to a fiercely intensive series of air raids. I spent two nights crouched in my basement flat with my baby and then rushed away to my mother who lived in the country, taking with me a friend and her baby. We were lucky as my mother made room for us. We learnt that the target for this return of the Luftwaffe to our skies over Hammersmith was St. Paul's School just up the road, which was being used as headquarters for General Eisenhower's D Day preparations.
I need hardly add that even to write about this memory is hard. It is something I would prefer to leave buried but reading about the air attacks on Baghdad, I know it is forever with me and I must protest against the bombing of all cities, by they London or Baghdad.
The House of Commons, at least, deserves an answer. John Lehman, former secretary to the United States navy, said:
Pentagon contacts had told him the laser-guided bombs were hitting their targets about 60‥ of the time. If you get a cloud coming between the airplane and the target or a burst of smoke, that breaks the laser-beam.
My colleagues and I are not ashamed to be called dogs of peace. The dogs of peace say that someone, some time, must answer those awkward questions.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: Having often had the job of responding to debates such as this, I have come to the conclusion that it is an almost impossible job. This debate has covered such a wide range of subjects that it is impossible to respond to all of them. I shall therefore concentrate on the subject that has undoubtedly been the theme of the week—the poll tax.
Before doing so, let me acknowledge the speeches on the middle east and the Gulf war that have been made by two or three of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and on the hostages issue, which concerns so many of us and was mentioned by several Conservative Members. Clearly it is appropriate that those issues should be reflected in a debate that is a sort of end-of-term report. The two or three months since Christmas have been dramatic.
I make no apology for concentrating on the poll tax. When I summed up a similar debate at Christmas, I could report with pleasure and pride—with the confidence of knowing that I had the House behind me—that we had managed, in the period since the autumn break, to get rid of the Prime Minister. It is not often that an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can say that, knowing that he has the support of the majority of the House. All my hon. Friends, plus a fair number of Tory Members, supported me on that issue. I am rather bewildered but pleased to say now that I can look forward with pleasure to the demise of the poll tax. Once again, I can speak, with the majority —perhaps with one or two late converts—of the House behind me. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the two or three points that I shall make on the poll tax.
The Government cannot dismiss the poll tax as if it were a peripheral policy they got wrong and for which they now mildly apologise. It has been central to the Government's legislative programme since 1987. They cannot say, "We sold you a second-hand car in 1987 and now we are sorry that a couple of tyres are bald." Rather, they should be saying, "We sold you a second-hand car in 1987 and it is now a total write-off." In any other walk of life, a substantial response would be required for such an error of judgment and such an infliction on the people of this country. The experiment has been a hugely expensive failure. Our estimate is that it has cost £10 billion.
In the past couple of weeks my constituency has been told that we cannot have our education capital allocation of £17·4 million because the financial position will not allow it. Instead, we are to have about a third of that—£6·5 million—which is considerably less than the single capital allocation to the city technology college, the one school which received massive Government handouts in the constituency. When I discovered that frugality was the order of the day on those matters, but that the Government had £10 billion to waste on the ludicrous experiment of the poll tax, I got some idea of the warped values of Conservative Members. I am glad to see that the Leader of the House agrees that so far £10 billion has been wasted on the poll tax in relief payments and implementation costs.
I know for certain that, in any walk of life other than Conservative Cabinets, if an error of the magnitude of the poll tax occurred, heads would roll. If the board of directors of a company or a local authority made a horrendous mess of its financial calculations, or if the management of a football club said that it intended to build a new stand that would cost a few million and that stand fell down after two years, someone would be held responsible. Why is that not happening in the Government? Who is responsible for what has happened? Who will own up and say, "Fair cop, Guy; it was me"? We see no sign whatever of that happening, yet undoubtedly if it happened in any other walk of life the Government would look for a scapegoat. The Government are ducking their responsibility.
It seems that there will not even be any resignations. Conservative Members will do their triple somersaults and stand on their heads and feel no obligation to resign because the principle that they supported has been turned over. I would certainly feel much better if the Government did one simple thing—I am sure that the Leader of the House will not do it, but perhaps someone else will. They


should simply say, "We are sorry. We got it horribly wrong and you in the Labour party—look me in the eye, watch my lips—were spot on in all the criticisms you made."
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay), is a reliable witness. He has stated this evening that he warned in Standing Committee—I was not there, but I am sure that his statement is accurate—what would happen if the Government went down the path they proposed. He said that it would be vastly expensive, grossly unfair and totally unworkable—[Interruption.]Conservative Members are becoming more and more agitated, except those who did not vote for the poll tax throughout.

Mr. Raffan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Grocott: I shall not give way, because the Leader of the House and I have only eight minutes each to reply to the debate.
It is astonishing that the Government could be so dreadfully wrong and we could be so entirely right, but the Government do not apologise. I see Conservative Members' indignation.

Mr. Raffan: rose——

Mr. Grocott: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, as he clearly wishes to explain.

Mr. Raffan: The hon. Gentleman paints a mythical fantasy picture of the unity of his party, yet we all know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) resigned because he disagreed with fellow Labour Members on the Front Bench about the Labour party's original proposals, to which we have already had 62 alterations.

Mr. Grocott: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been around to witness recent developments on these matters, but he is delving into ancient history now. We know perfectly well what his party said and did. We know who is culpable.
I make one appeal to the Government, as we are in a mood of conciliation. We shall not be too triumphant about the poll tax; we shall just say, "We told you so." But how about a little fairness in the tactics employed in the pre-election mood which seems to be gripping everyone at present? Let us have a little honesty about the way in which programmes are being costed.
I listened to the Secretary of State for the Environment yesterday. I noticed that, not surprisingly, all his effort was directed at seeking to destroy our policy documents on local government finance. Of course, he has the whole weight of the civil service to cost our proposals. Unashamedly the Government constantly use their civil servants—6,000 of them in Marsham street—to cost and examine everything we do. If the Government want to do that, fair enough. I suppose that we will do it after the next election when we are in government.
I should like the Government to adopt a little consistency. I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about his endeavours in the matter, but I have been trying in vain by means of parliamentary questions to have some of the Tory election pledges costed. One would think that one could do it by means of a parliamentary question. I understand that, if the Tory party wins the next election, one thing that it will do is to allow all schools to opt out,

as it is so fond of schools opting out. Of course, the Leader of the House is particularly well qualified to answer on this matter, because he was responsible for some of the errors made.
I should have thought that it was reasonable to seek to find out from the Department of Education and Science what it would cost if all schools opted out, given that Ministers have told us repeatedly that there are costs associated with opting out. There are many costs, but one of them is the transitional grants which are paid to schools which opt out. I asked what I regarded as two simple questions, and one does not need to be a top-ranking civil servant to answer them. I asked what would be the average cost in transitional grants of schools that opted out. The Government found difficulty in answering that question, but eventually I was given a list of the schools that had opted out and the cost in each case. I worked out the average, although perhaps the Government could not. The average cost was about £25,000 per school.
I hope that the next question is clear to the House. It was obviously not clear to the Ministers or officials at the DES. It was:
To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science.…what would be the total cost in payment of…transitional grants, assuming that the present average payment was maintained, if every local education authority school opted for grant-maintained status.
Reading between the lines, I was trying to find out what the Tory party's election manifesto, as it developed, would cost us. The answer that I received from the DES was:
The levels of these grants arc reviewed annually in the light of the Government's spending priorities for education and other services. It is not therefore possible to project a figure for the total cost if every local authority school opted for grant-maintained status."—[Official Report, 7 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 229.]
My word, I bet it would be possible to determine the cost if that policy was in our manifesto. I have not the slightest doubt that Ministers would be jumping up at the Dispatch Box with the figures. In this slightly frenetic pre-election atmosphere, let us have some consistency in the Government's approach. If they cost election manifestos, let them cost their own as well as the Labour party's manifesto. Let us have a little humility from the Government too.
It would be wrong to sit down without mentioning the other piece of bad news for the Government this week, although they do not seem to be too worried about it. Perhaps they represent seats where there are no problems of unemployment. The bad news this week is the unemployment figures. Again, a central plank of the Government's case is that all the misery they have put us through in the past 12 years can be excused because they are good at managing the economy and can be tough. They are not very good at managing employment in the economy. Unemployment is now 2 million, even on the Government's fiddled figures, and we know well enough how the methods of calculation have been changed over the years.
Representing a constituency in the west midlands where we have been hard hit twice by the recessions engineered by the Government in the past 12 years, I always find it amusing that the Government talk as if the 85,000 people thrown out of work since the previous month's figures were published are not really 85,000 people because the figures have to be seasonally adjusted. I wish that the Government would distinguish between people, who have lost their jobs in the past month who are actually out of


work and the people who are merely seasonally adjusted. It is apparent to the people who have lost their jobs. That is the scale of the economic failure that we have suffered under this Government. Hardly a day goes by without some further evidence arising of the way in which they have mismanaged our affairs in the past 12 years.
We end this Session until the Easter recess with a little election atmosphere in the air, which is reflected in the comments of several hon. Members. We are told that the Prime Minister has been reading the opinion polls and that they tell him that he is the most popular, warm and caring human being since polling began. I hope that he believes those polls. I understand that he thinks that there may be a window of electoral opportunity. If he believes that, I invite him, please, to jump. Perhaps he feels that he will have an electoral opportunity in the next few months. I hope that this is the last time that we shall have a debate such as this under this Government. Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I look forward to a general election to put some of these problems right, and the sooner it comes the better.

8 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I agree with one comment—and one comment only—made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott). I have learnt that this is an impossible debate to answer, because so many different points are raised and I do not have the luxury that the hon. Gentleman has of not answering most of the questions.
Were it not for the disgraceful abuse of procedures—not only bogus points of order, but the bogus point made by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) —I should have had longer in which to speak. Several hon. Members specifically asked me to draw certain issues to the attention of one of my right hon. Friends. I shall do so if I cannot deal with all the points tonight.
I shall begin by dealing with one of the points made by the hon. Member for The Wrekin because it was absolutely ludicrous. He mentioned the figure of £10 billion and used the word "wasted" in relation to the community charge. In the same breath, he talked about honesty in figures. I do not think that I have heard a more dishonest figure for a long time. It is typical of the outrageous misinformation campaign waged by the hon. Gentleman and shows how little the Labour party understands about these issues.
How did he reach the figure of £10 billion? It must include much of the money spent by central Government on rebates, benefits to students and others and the transitional relief scheme. Those schemes are designed to reduce the community charge for those on lower incomes. If he describes that as money wasted on administration, he has hit the wrong target. It is typical of the way in which he tries to distort the facts. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that what he calls waste has benefited many people and has been well targeted.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) spoke about his local theatre. I am a strong supporter of local theatre, so I understand why he chose to speak on that subject. As he said, I am familiar with the Eastern Arts regional association. While he was

speaking, I wrote down that I would respond by making it clear that, although I should pass on his comments to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts, it is an issue for Eastern Arts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West knows that the arm's-length principle applies to arts funding. He acknowledged that and he knows that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts has no direct power to intervene. I hope that the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West will be drawn to the attention of Eastern Arts, and I understand his constituency interest.
The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) raised a couple of points in his entertaining speech. I shall deal first with his comments on parliamentary questions, to which I have two responses. He said that he had experienced some difficulty with the Table Office about what were described as campaigning questions. The Procedure Committee is undertaking an investigation into oral questions—I have given evidence to it—and he will be able to put his points to it.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he had been told that questions were too expensive. There are good reasons for that, because there must be a limit to the expense of any one question. However, I have told the Procedure Committee that we must have a more accurate figure on the cost of answering questions. Perhaps we shall have to make a few changes.
The right hon. Gentleman's point of substance was about people escaping from open prisons. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, who has responsibility for prisons, will shortly discuss it with him directly. I hope that that will help to overcome some of the procedural problems that he encountered.
In their moving speeches, my hon. Friends the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) referred to the hostages. I fully understand why they raised that important matter on the Adjournment debate. We all hope that progress can be made before we rise for Easter. My hon. Friends were right to remind us of the plight of the hostages and we share their concern. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that the four he mentioned are far from being forgotten. I shall pass on my hon. Friends' comments, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South said, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs needs no reminding.
I have one or two comments to make about the hostages, because it is one of the most important points to be raised tonight. As the Prime Minister told the House on 28 February, the fate of our hostages is ever present in our minds. We are determined to secure their release and we are doing everything that we can to bring it about. We believe that Iran has decisive influence. We are pressing the Iranians to live up to their undertaking to use their humanitarian influence to achieve the release of our hostages. We have made clear to them the importance that we attach to this issue and we have told them unequivocally that there can be no prospect of developing a bilateral relations until if the hostages are freed. The freeing of the hostages would transform our relationship. We are also encouraging the Syrians to maintain their helpful efforts on our behalf. The extension of their influence in Lebanon lends importance to their role.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster mentioned especially the case of Roger Cooper. We remain concerned about his continued imprisonment in Tehran since 1985 and regard it as wholly unjustified. We hope that the Iranians will release him soon. Following reports in the Tehran Timeswhich refer to him, we have been in contact with our chargé d'affaires in Tehran. We have made it clear to the Iranians that further advances in our relations are imposssible unless Roger Cooper and our hostages in Lebanon are released. I hope that that makes our position clear and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising the issue.
I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). There is currently a substantial expansion in higher education and, clearly, we wish the deaf to be included in that. Several things have been done to help the disabled, including the deaf. Under the loan scheme there was special treatment for people with disabilities. The Department of Education and Science offers a capital grant scheme to enable independent colleges of further education to improve facilities for the disabled. The hon. Gentleman referred especially to the new disabled students' allowance which, when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science, increased significantly from £765 to £1,000 a year. He also referred to the two new allowances—one for equipment of up to £3,000 over the whole course and one for non-medical care costs of up to £4,000 a year. The latter two are likely to be especially useful to the deaf.
I was interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the allowances not working and about the people for whom they were meant not having access to the funds. I shall draw his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) raised the issue of tourism. I know of his great interest in tourism, which plays a considerable role in our constituencies. I have seen the effect of the Gulf conflict on tourism in central London and elsewhere. People from overseas had unnecessary fears about coming to this country. However, they are coming back, and I hope that they will continue to do so.
My hon. Friend knows that tourism is achieved by a mixture of public and private expenditure—especially private sector expenditure, and I shall comment on that in a moment. He referred briefly to the grant to the British Tourist Authority, but I am sure that he will acknowledge that direct Government support, through the statutory tourist boards, amounts to much more than he said. Indeed, it amounts to about £74 million. The Government contribute in a number of other ways to tourism. It is estimated that Government support for other tourism-related activities exceeds £380 million. I want to get the figures on record to show——

Mr. Gregory: rose——

Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that I cannot give way.
The Government make a substantial contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for York and I know that many of the excellent examples in tourism, and so many of the substantial changes and developments in recent years, are due to the efforts of private enterprise and to entrepreneurial activity. We have done much to encourage

that. The far better facilities and services have come about through a mixture of private enterprise and of public support, especially the former.
I was determined to make the point to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) that has been made on so many occasions and must be made again when one listens to his remarks. It needs to be rammed home again and again whose fault it was that the situation arose and how many opportunities were given to Saddam Hussein to avoid a conflict after his aggressive invasion on 2 August and before 15 January, which he did not take up.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East raised two points about sanctions. It is too soon to say how or when sanctions should be modified. The Security Council will need to consider carefully and will need to see Iraqi compliance with the Security Council resolutions, especially resolution 686. Thereafter, a selective and progressive approach is required. Clearly, that is a condition.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East referred to the defence components exhibition. It is organised by the Defence Export Services Organisation, which was set up under a Labour Government in 1966. All proposed arms exports are considered case by case and are subject to stringent licensing procedures. Before a licence is granted, a wide variety of considerations is taken into account. It does not follow that, because an item is exhibited at the defence components and equipment exhibition, an export licence will be granted.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) raised a number of points about homelessness. As I have only another 30 seconds, I cannot give much response, except to say that he will know that substantial sums are now being devoted to that by the Government. The hon. Gentleman also took us into an interesting discourse on the history of satanic abuse. His main point was to draw some of that to the attention of social workers. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health has said that firmer guidance will be issued this summer to local authorities in a new version of the publication "Working Together".
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) tempted me by saying that I was the only remaining Norfolk Minister to whom he had not made representations on his issue. I will have to give him a different, but equally disappointing, answer tonight. He will know that we are in the period of Budget purdah, so it is not possible for me to say anything on the matter this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 28th March, do adjourn until Monday 15th April and, at its rising on Friday 3rd May, do adjourn until Tuesday 7th May.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order during a debate that is dedicated to Back Benchers for a Front-Bench Opposition spokesman to waste our valuable time in playing silly games for the benefit of journalists?
Is it in order for another Front-Bench Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), to wind up by covering subjects such as city technology colleges and unemployment, which were not raised in the debate, and to ignore important issues, such as the one that I raised about the Punjab, the one raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) and Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack)


on the hostages and the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan) on the interests of caravan dwellers? Is it in order that our debate should be wholly subverted by the Labour Front Bench?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It occasionally happens that points of order are raised during private Members' time. The Chair always regrets that, because it cuts into private Members' time, which is especially relevant when debates are timed. This is one of the few occasions in the parliamentary year when virtually any point can be raised as long as it is prefaced by the comment that we should have a debate on it before we adjourn.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time,put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Third time, put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(1) (Consolidated Fund Bills), That the House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Davis.]

Telecommunications

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I want to speak this evening on the important subject of choice and competition and the British telecommunications industry. This is not the first time on which I have been fortunate enough to win a place in the ballot for the Consolidated Fund Bill, but it is the first time on which I have won a place at the civilised hour of 8.15 pm. The other occasions have involved the hour of 5 am.
I am probably as pleased as my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friends are that this debate has been called rather earlier than it might have been. I am especially pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs is on the Front Bench. He is well known in industry, in the City and in the telecommunications industry for the skill and experience that he has brought to this important area. I am sure that he will take us a little further in the direction in which the Government are minded that the telecommunications industry should go. That will be of great benefit for this debate.
I am glad that my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), for Wyre (Mr. Mans) and for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) will contribute to this debate. They will cover a number of areas, and each has far greater expertise than I do. I want to look at the facts and draw together a number of strands of Government policy in this important area.
This debate is extremely difficult and embarrassing for the Labour party, because it goes to the heart of the difference between the two parties. This debate is about not only the telecommunications industry ——

Mr. Terry Fields: No.

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself, I will explain why it is so difficult and embarrassing for the Labour party. The debate goes to the heart of the difference between the two parties. Our debate is not only about the British telecommunications industry, but about choice. Therein lies one of the great differences between the two parties. The Conservative party believes passionately in choice and opportunity, and in spreading power and opportunity, which results from choice. The Labour party does not believe in that. The telecommunications industry is an excellent area in which to explore the fundamental difference between the two major parties in the House.
The telecommunications industry represents in the clearest way the Government's political and economic priorities. It makes it clear that we are intent on enhancing competition, on reducing the scope of the public sector and on promoting choice for the consumer.
Those policies have been an unambiguous success in telecommunications. Since British Telecom was privatised in 1984, the British telecommunications industry has become one of the most dynamic and open in the world. There has been a wide range of benefits, including lower prices, more choice, better service, more investment, more competition and a more fulfilled work force. It is a measure of the Labour party's embarrassment that its Benches this evening are so empty. Labour Members have stolen away into the night, ashamed of their record and embarrassed by the terms of my motion.
I mentioned earlier that the debate was about choice. Choice is the hallmark of Conservatism. It is choice not only in the area of telecommunications, but in a range of other areas that affect so many people in their everyday lives. In housing, choice is personified by the Government's right-to-buy policy, which has spread choice, opportunity and ownership to many people. More than 1 million homes have been sold under that scheme. The council tenants—tenants of the state—who have been enabled by that Conservative policy to enfranchise themselves into home ownership are the first to comment with great approval on that aspect of choice.

Ms. Joyce Quin: A minute ago, the hon. Gentleman referred to investment. Is it not the case that investment in new technology has lagged behind that of our competitors? British Telecom, for example, spends only 1·9 per cent. of sales on research and development, compared with 4·7 per cent. Spent in France, 3·8 per cent. in Japan and 3·9 per cent. in Sweden. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that our telecommunications equipment industry has gone from a trade surplus in 1979 to a trade deficit today?

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Lady will bear with me a little longer, I shall give her an explanation that I hope will be to her satisfaction. Those statistics are not only meaningless but bogus. I intend to dwell at some length on particular areas of the telecommunications industry where Britain is a world leader. In the meantime, I want to return to what I was saying about choice.
I have talked about housing, but choice is very evident in our schools as well. One has only to consider the tremendous opportunities that local management has unleashed. At present, many schools are considering whether grant-maintained status could be very suitable for them. Grant-maintained status has been catching on perhaps a little more slowly than some of us anticipated at the beginning. However, I believe that it will gather pace and, in terms of public support for a policy that extends choice, will be the educational equivalent of the right to buy. One thinks of the assisted places schemes. Dare I mention my ten-minute Bill, which was given an unopposed First Reading yesterday? The purpose of that Bill is to compel all schools to make their examination results available in common form for publication. Thus, in education, too, choice is at the heart of the policies of the Conservative party.
In the case of the health service, one need only look at the way in which provider resistance to the Government's health reforms has evaporated to see how GP budget-holding is gaining in popularity, how trust hospitals are gaining in popularity, and how the health reforms have helped patients. Provider resistance has slowly but surely disappeared. Competition, improving standards for the public, choice, opportunity for the many rather than privilege for the few—these are the hallmark of 1990s Conservatism, and they are at the heart of this debate, although it refers specifically to the British telecommunications industry.
Privatisation has quite simply been a brilliant success —and not only for telecommunications. One thinks of the privatisation, in the last few days, of the electricity industry, which has been such an outstanding success. This policy has been copied all around the world. Even in Russia, people are beginning to wonder whether

privatisation policies would help their enormous and ailing economy. Only from the Opposition, whose Members are too embarrassed to be here tonight, do we get an indication that this policy, which is popular all round the world, has failed to penetrate. British Telecom is a very good example. The Labour party opposed every change we made: it is all quite clearly on the record.
I want to take the House back to 1981. In July of that year, the British Telecommunication Act separated British Telecom from the Post Office, and the Secretary of State took powers to license competitors. That was opposed by the Opposition. In October of that year, the first tranche of Cable and Wireless shares was sold, the remainder being sold in 1983 and 1985. That too was opposed by the Labour party. In February 1982, Mercury was licensed as a Cable and Wireless/Barclays/BP joint venture, later becoming wholly owned by Cable and Wireless. That was opposed by the Labour party. In March 1982, terminal equipment supply was liberalised, and the British Approvals Board for Telecommunications was set up. In October, value-added services over fixed networks were liberalised. In November 1983, we had the duopoly statement, and the first broad-band cable franchises were announced.
In April 1984, we had the Telecommunication Act, establishing Oftel and the current licensing regime. In June of that year, new licences were issued to BT and Hull. In November, 51 per cent, of British Telecom shares were offered for sale. That was all opposed by the Labour party. In June 1985, two cellular radio licences were issued. In October, the BT-Mercury interconnect determination was issued by the director-general. In March 1986, two national private mobile radio operators and five additional national radio pagers were selected, four existing operators having already been licensed by British Telecom. In October 1986, the 100,000th cellular subscriber appeared. In December, equipment approval powers were delegated by the Government to the director-general.
In February 1987, data services over fixed networks were liberalised. In October, the first television cable franchise—Windsor, I think—was permitted to start trial telephone services. In November, Mercury was permitted to provide public call boxes. In October 1988, specialist satellite service operators—United Kingdom services only —were announced. In January 1989, four telepoint operators were announced. In the same month, the consultation document "Phone on the Move" was issued. In September, the telepoint services began.
In November, the full resale of British Telecom and Mercury leased lines was permitted. In the same month, specialised satellite services operators were permitted to provide European services. In December, three personal communication network operators were announced. In 1990, the one millionth cellular subscriber came forward. In July, arrangements for the duopoly review were announced. In November, the duopoly review consultative paper was published.
At this point, we can see the hand of the recently appointed Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at work. The Secretary of State deserves a very special tribute for his personal style and success. His contribution is quite clear from the changes that have been made in the White Paper since the consultative document was published. I have traced six such changes.
First, whereas the Government were going to support progressive introduction, equal access is now to be introduced as soon as possible.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has decided that, for the foreseeable future, BT and Mercury will not be allowed to provide entertainment services at a national level in their own right. In the past, as I understand the position, the proposal was to permit provision after 10 years, with the possibility of a review after seven years.
Thirdly, "neighbourhood telepoint" is to be licensed. That too represents a change from what was proposed in the consultative paper. Now retailing is to be permitted —another change. Interconnection arrangements are to be streamlined and strengthened. That is the fifth change. The sixth is that number portability is to be introduced, subject to a cost-benefit study. Number portability will be very helpful to many hon. Members who live in two places—in London during the week, and in their constituencies at the weekend.
The entire White Paper on telecommunications policy in the 1990s is a great tribute to the skill, beliefs and dynamism of my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), who is a very good Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In my view, the key measures in the recently announced White Paper have received insufficient attention. They are staggering. They mark the ending of the present duopoly policy. New companies will be allowed to apply for licences to run new telecommunications networks. That is a very major and substantial change.
There will be new, tougher annual call price capping. Increases will be limited to the retail price index figure less 6·25 per cent., whereas previously it was that figure less 4·5 per cent. That represents a staggering fall, in real terms, in the cost of using the telephone. It is a remarkable success.
There is to be a 10 per cent. cut in charges for international calls. That, too, is remarkable. As I shall demonstrate shortly, it is very different from what happened when British Telecom was nationalised and was under the control of the Labour party. There will be a more effective low-user scheme, benefiting up to 2 million customers who make the least use of the telephone but may rely on it as a lifeline. This is an enormously important change. It should also be welcomed by the Opposition, as it relates to many very poor folk who, without a telephone, would be in very serious danger. It is a great tribute to the Government and to British Telecom.
There have been a host of other developments that I shall not deal with in this short debate. A wide range of new satellite services serving niche markets will be permitted—that change will be greatly to our advantage. All this comes on top of the many other changes that have been achieved over the past 12 years. In 1984, there were 20 million British Telecom phone lines. In 1990, there were no fewer than 25 million—an increase of 26 per cent. That is most impressive. Since privatisation, prices have fallen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms. That too is a most impressive statistic.
Mercury is established as a serious competitor and has installed a national digital network that exceeds the company's coverage by far. Seventy-five per cent. of customers can have a choice of trunk operator to carry their calls. That includes the magnificent Gedling

Conservative Association headquarters, recently opened by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), which has to its great advantage benefited from that excellent change.
BT is today investing about £3 billion a year in modern equipment. That is part of the answer to the hon. Lady's earlier intervention. In 1984, BT had 13,000 km of optical fibre in its network; today, it has 1·1 million km. In 1984 we could dial 137 countries direct. Now there has been a 45 per cent. increase, and we can reach 99 per cent. of the worlds 700 million phones.
In 1979, less than half of all installation orders were completed within two weeks. We can all remember what it was like then. Now 96 per cent. are completed by the day agreed with the customer. Now 96 per cent. of phone boxes work—an amazing change. Equipment is much cheaper than elsewhere in Europe and call charges are lower. The United Kingdom now has the two largest cellular radio networks in the world.
All that is against a background of innovative services —satellite news gathering, store and forward fax machines, call follow-me and the development of the 0800 numbers. That is a most impressive performance.
What of the Labour party? While Telekon Malaysia is shortly to pass into the private sector, while Mexico has sold its biggest telecommunications company, Telecons de Mexico, in 1990, while Argentina sold Entel last year, while the eastern bloc is considering the advantages of privatisation, the Labour party specifically commits itself to renationalise BT. Its policy document "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change"—known affectionately to my hon. Friends as "Duck the Challenge, Fake the Change"—makes it clear that it is intent on renationalisation.
Moreover, Labour would renationalise on the cheap. Labour leaders recognise the vast expense of renationalisation and have tried to devise schemes to realise their aims without paying the full price. The Government's successful policies of liberalisation and deregulation of telecommunications have inspired Governments throughout the world to follow a similar course.
Meanwhile, the Labour party is moving in the opposite direction. It has put forward no convincing rationale for its threat to renationalise BT. It cannot be justified on monopoly grounds because BT operates in an increasingly competitive market. It cannot be justified on the grounds that BT is a utility because the Labour party appears to have dropped plans to renationalise British Gas.
The form of words used in "Modern Manufacturing Strength" the Opposition's latest policy document, suggests that the Labour party wants to renationalise BT because of a
long-term commitment to technological advance in telecommunications and elsewhere.
The hon. Lady will find that on page 16. That is no justification at all. BT's investment has soared since its successful privatisation.
The Labour party has still failed to come clean on the cost of its policies. Statements in "Modern Manufacturing Strength" that a Labour Government would not be "dirigiste"—page 5—are difficult to take seriously when contrasted with Opposition's policy on telecommunications. Labour has committed itself to the view that
a national fibre optic cable network …cannot be left to the free market". That is on page 12. Therefore, BT must be empowered and directed to undertake this major investment programme in the public interest.


The Labour party's plans could cost the taxpayer as much as £20,000 million. It is high time that the Opposition put a price tag on their promises. They would pour taxpayers' money down the drain. Britain is already benefiting enormously from private sector investment without charging that bill to the taxpayers. Fibre optics and broad band cable should be developed at the speed and in the way that the market demands. There is no point installing capacity that will not be used, or offering people services that they do not want. The rapid growth of telecommunications systems in Britain shows that the Government's policy works. Britain already has more fibre installed than France or Germany which, geographically, are rather larger countries than we are.
But above all, we know from experience that the Labour party's industrial policy does not work, because we have the example of what happened in the 1970s. Britain had a nationalised monopoly. We have the record. We know what happened. Labour put up prices by more than inflation and, if I am correct, in one year it doubled prices. A quarter of the 77,000 call boxes did not work. The nationalised BT was starved of money for investment in those days—that is another part of the answer to the hon. Lady's earlier intervention—and it was cut off from international technology. What an amazing contrast.
We have ensured that the customer comes first. BT has put the days of subsidy and state control behind it. It is no wonder that Labour Members are too embarrassed to attend tonight in any number to debate the motion with me and my hon. Friends. I invite the hon. Lady to cast off the Labour party's absurd and ridiculous policies. After all, there are not many hon. Members here to witness that tonight if she does. She can recant publicly tonight and end the absurdity of the Labour party's policy in this area.
The British public will not be deceived by the Labour party's absurd proposals, however they are dressed up. We know perfectly well, and so does the British public, that beneath the veneer of respectability the Labour party cannot cast out the nakedness of socialism in all its ugliness as revealed by its telecommunications policy.
The Labour party's electoral appeal at the next election will depend on persuading the public of two key factors. The first is that the Labour party is a true supporter of markets and free enterprise, and the second is that it can run a liberal market economy better than Conservative Members who believe in it and always believed in it before it became so popular not only in Britain but around the world.
The Labour party's telecommunications policy stands as a beacon, a monument to the fact that nothing could be further from the truth.

Sir Gerrard Neale (Cornwall; North): I declare my interest in this subject and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on the spirited way in which he has addressed the subject and on his success in the ballot which has allowed. him to introduce this important subject.
Last week marked yet another mutation in the development of telecommunications policy in Britain. As my hon. Friend has said, it saw the ending of the duopoly policy, the beginning of the end of restricted access and a whole range of other measures which he so ably listed. But the process started back in 1980. In another incarnation,

my hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs was very much involved in that at the time and he has been following it enthusiastically since, even when he has not had ministerial responsibility for it.
It was Lord Joseph, when Secretary of State for Trade and industry, who saw the great need to introduce competition and he made the statement in July 1980 which shook many people and started the process of liberalisation. It certainly rattled the Opposition to their boots. They could not come to terms with the fact that not only were the Post Office and BT to be separated —to be fair, they were not against that policy—but we were about to embark on the liberalisation of the monopoly.
As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there were a series of landmarks or mutations in the development of that telecommunications policy. Successive Secretaries of State and Ministers, the Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), who unfortunately is not too well at the moment, right through to my hon. Friend the Minister, have pushed and pushed to ensure that our telecommunications policy has become more conscious of competition and consumer choice.
Those who served on the Committee which considered the legislation will remember that it was lost because of the 1983 election. It was reintroduced in 1984 and was subsequently enacted. I do not think that the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ms. Quin) was a Member at that time, but Labour Members defended British Telecom to the hilt without being aware of the cost of supplying the service to a consumer. It transpired that British Telecom had only one qualified accountant. Its knowledge of the cost of the service that it provided was lamentable, but it has been driven to change by the policies of Ministers, wholeheartedly supported by Conservative Members.
Rather than go over the ground that was more than ably covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, I shall deal with the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made last week. I find it difficult to dislike the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), and because of his performances at the Dispatch Box, I find it difficult to disrespect him. It was extremely unusual, therefore, that he crashed in against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which showed either that he had not studied his brief as carefully as he should have or—I hope for his sake that this is not true—he cannot make Labour policy on industry and telecommunications stand up. One of his first points was on research and development. British Telecom is a private company. It is not for the Government to dictate its research and development policy, any more than it is for them to dictate the policy of Mercury or any other company.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said, British telecommunications products and services lead the world. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the Department is bombarded by people from around the world who want to study the way in which our policy has opened up telecommunications. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling mentioned the countries that have followed our example, and some of the countries that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East used to show that our policy is wrong are in the process of not only liberalising but privatising.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East mentioned prices. He has a considerable grasp of economics and cannot be unaware that inflation is falling quickly. British


Telecom's prices are not increasing by the rate of inflation but are falling. It is extraordinary that he did not grasp that point. The hon. Gentleman said that domestic consumers would not gain from the reduction in the cost of international calls. I do not know whether he imagines that domestic users never make international calls.
The most extraordinary feature of the hon. Gentleman's speech was a question that he put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State:
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the difference between us is that, while he supports competition with reduced regulation, we believe that the real issue is that competition should be accompanied by proper regulation in the interests of the whole public."—[Official Report, 5 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 140.]
He put that point as if he were trying to elicit from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an admission that that was the Government's hidden agenda, but we have been pursuing that policy since 1980. I am sure that Ministers have sometimes been frustrated by the length of time that it has taken to implement it, but we have been proud to promote it, because we want more competition and choice and because we believe that strong private sector companies will create competition and strength without regulation. The purchasing power of the consumer must be encouraged to create the choice that we are seeking.
We recognised in 1983 or 1984 that, because of its dominance of the marketplace, British Telecom had to be regulated by Oftel. I was sad last week to hear one of my hon. Friends impugn the operation of Oftel. Doubt was expressed in 1983 or 1984 about whether it would be strong enough, but no one who is involved in telecommunications can doubt that it has performed extraordinarily well. Tribute must be paid to Sir Bryan Carsberg and his team for the way in which they have assisted Ministers to achieve further choice.
I can only echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling on Labour policy—nothing has changed. On the Second Reading of the British Telecommunications Bill, Labour's spokesman said exactly the same as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East:
The loss of the monopoly will mean a worse service for the majority of more people. Once again, the rural services will be at risk. It also means something else. The right hon. Gentleman"—
my noble Friend Lord Joseph—
tries hard to reassure us on this matter, because of this, at least, he is aware. It means the decline of our industries in a special way."—[Official Report, 2 December 1980; Vol. 995, c. 151.]
We have heard numerous examples—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling could have been given many more—of how British Telecom's performance has improved dramatically over the years.
Amusingly—I must draw the attention of the House to this—in the same debate, Labour's spokesman, John Silkin, who, tragically, is now dead, made it plain that Labour would buy back not only British Telecom but Cable and Wireless. He said that, on the strength of that policy, Labour would win the next election. As we know, the Conservative party had a majority of more than 100. That shows that Labour has learnt nothing from the performance of British Telecom and other players such as

Mercury. Labour Members will never fool the public that they have a sensible policy, but perhaps they will go on fooling themselves.
Although we have created choice for Members of Parliament in their various walks of life or in their homes, it is still almost impossible for any competitor of British Telecom to gain access to the Palace of Westminster to provide alternative services for us. I make that comment because the House ought to reflect on the choice that is available outside the Palace of Westminster. In making that observation, I do not seek in any way to cast any reflection on the Officers of the House; the responsibility falls upon Members of Parliament.
A comment by the then chairman of British Telecom shortly after British Telecom was privatised epitomises the debate. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East might wish to reflect upon it. He said that the great challenge that faced him was to get all his staff, from top to bottom, to treat people at the end of the telephone, who pay the bills, not as subscribers but as customers. As long as the hon. Lady and all her parliamentary colleagues seek to treat people as subscribers—on the basis that, if they benefit from state services they should think themselves lucky—they will fall into the trap of not giving people the choice they deserve in terms of competitive products and services and of not treating them as customers, as they ought to be.

Mr. Keith Mans: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I intend to make three points. First, I want to look back over the past 12 years and to see what we have achieved. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), whose description of what has happened was a tour de force. Secondly, I want to look forward to what we shall do in terms of providing cabling and an increasing variety of services for our customers, as opposed to subscribers. Thirdly, I shall say something about the product. We must always remember that we are trying to serve the consumers of this service—private individuals in their homes and businesses. If the telecommunications industry manages to do that, it will succeed. If all that it wants to do is to go in the direction that the Government or outside forces suggest, it will fail. The industry must always be clear about what the customer wants.
It is worth looking back at what has happened during the past 10 or 12 years. There was one monopoly supplier in the public sector. We were not even allowed to buy a telephone. In the mid-1970s British Telecom—part of the Post Office—reluctantly allowed us the choice of three colours of the same type of telephone—black, ivory or red. If, however, we asked for an ivory or red telephone, almost certainly we got a black one. It was perfectly clear that there had been no research into what consumers wanted. Now there are literally hundreds of styles, colours and different types of telephone. Moreover, we can buy our telephone. As an example of what we have done about the pricing of telephones and services, there are telephones on the market now that cost less than a year's rental. The rental system was much promoted by the Opposition and, as far as I am aware, they still promote that policy. That is an example of what has happened to the pricing structure of the telephone industry.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) asks what we have done for the less fortunate members of


society, such as pensioners and those on low incomes. We have made both the product cheaper and the service cheaper. I could quote figures, going back over many years, to show that that is so. Between 1987 and 1990 the price of telephones and calls has risen less than the rate of inflation. In 1987 and 1988 the weighted average of telephone calls did not rise, and in 1986 it fell. Those figures were provided by Oftel. During this Government's period in office, and particularly since the industry was privatised, clearly efficiency has increased and the service has become cheaper.
That has to be compared with what the Opposition have done. They have consistently opposed every move that we have made to give the consumer choice, to make the service cheaper and to provide competition. In the early 1980s, they did not support the privatisation legislation. Then they tried to persuade all British Telecom's employees not to buy shares. However, 90 per cent. of them did so. During the election campaign in 1986, they said that they would renationalise the service.
It is interesting to note the comments of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East in exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley). He referred to an extension of competition and then showed what he meant by that. He said that he believed that British Telecom should be set clear performance targets. Who is to set those targets? Not the consumer, not businesses using the service; the Government would set those targets. He also said that there should be an increase in telephone connections. There was no thought to whether telephone connections were required by the consumer, or what kind of connections the consumer required. Moreover, no thought was given to whether the market would lead the desire for such connections. It was simply a target—set, no doubt, by a new Department of State for the number of connections that should be made by the year 2000, or whenever.
Finally, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East said that that would ensure that telecommunications benefited not just a few competing companies but the country as a whole. What did he mean by "the country as a whole"? Over the past five to 10 years, and with several competing companies, consumers and businesses that use the telecommunications system have been seen to benefit.
So much for the past. We now have a highly competitive system that is responsive to the market, and we can move forward to provide a variety of services. In the not too distant future, people may not have to be given hard-wired installations in their homes; they may be able to take advantage of the sort of facilities that the Telepoint system is increasingly providing around the country. That will bring down the cost of connections and make them more easily available.
The fact that we have a highly liberal and competitive telephone and telecommunications system is already encouraging companies to set up headquarters in this country instead of in Germany, France and the rest of Europe. Unlike Opposition Members, they look at the figures and see that that will benefit their companies. That shows the success of what we have achieved, and it will help business in this country in the future.
When cabling comes, it must be in response to demand, not in response to documents cobbled together by politicians who believe that we need the whole country

cabled by a particular year at huge cost to the public purse. Cabling must follow demand by business and by the people who want to pay for it.
I must also mention the products themselves before I end. This is an area of which we cannot be quite so proud as we can of the others that I have mentioned. Far too many products today are manufactured abroad, not as a result of a lack of research and development here but because of the lack of marketing skills in companies such as GEC. I exempt Plessey, which could call on considerable marketing skills and made quite a number of telephones in this country. In future, we must improve on that record so as to ensure that we can supply more of our large and liberalised market with indigenous products. I hope that, after 1992, such products will move out from here into Europe, and that we will not import large numbers of instruments from the far east.
Over the past 10 years, we have experienced a telecommunications revolution. Now we point the way forward for the rest of Europe, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said, is following our example. It is a pity that the Opposition cannot admit their mistakes of the past and that they want to renationalise British Telecom and give it set targets instead of letting the market do that. Why cannot they go forward with us and show the rest of Europe how these things are done? We in this country pioneered the way forward, and I am convinced that it represents the way forward for telecommunications.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) not only on initiating an important debate and on his Mexican—or was it Spanish?—pronunciation, but on making the important point that the Labour party's recent apparent conversion to the market is bogus and hypocritical. On this issue, as on so many others, that party is walking backwards into the future, eyes firmly fixed on the past and on the ideologies of the past.
I should also mention what my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) said. He emphasised that the huge revolution, especially of the past six years, has resulted from the market being flexible to consumer demand. It has been a market-led, not a centrally regulated, expansion. It has been led by the demands and needs of the consumer. That is why British Telecom is in the middle of a £3 billion investment programme; it is why competition has so successfully produced dividends for the consumer.
We have already heard that, as a result of this competition and liberalised approach, prices have fallen by 20 per cent. in the past four years. What is more, it is estimated that, over the next three, they will fall again by about 26 per cent. in real terms—and they may even fall in absolute terms. We have also heard how 75 per cent. of the country is now open to competition from Mercury, and that 96 per cent. of customers' installations are fixed on time. Fewer than half of them were in 1979. We have heard, too, how the network of phone boxes throughout the country has grown by a third.
Possibly more significant than all these figures is the fact that because new products have been developed—Cellphone, Vodaphone and Cellnet are classic examples—the growth in this market has been stupendous. Between 1986 and 1990, there was an increase from 100,000 to


1 million cellphone users. There is a huge variety of equipment, and investment has been of a consumer variety. In 1984, we had 13,000 km of optic fibre equipment and now we have no less than 1·1 million km.

Sir Gerrard Neale: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because the Government grasped the challenge offered by cellphones and set standards that were marketable around the world, products made in Britain are being exported, even to Japan?

Mr. Coombs: Precisely. That is the result of a policy that is competition and consumer-based.
British Telecom is a private company, but it would not be right to say that everything about it is perfect. I wish to show why it is by no means perfect and why the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry brought forward last week were necessary and extremely important in extending the idea of consumer choice and competition still further.
British Telecom says that domestic calls are subsidised by international calls, and international comparisons made recently show that domestic or short-range calls—not trunk calls—are five times more expensive here than they are in France, Italy and Germany. It costs £148 for the installation of a telephone in Britain whereas it costs only £20 in France and Germany. Admittedly, long-distance calls are cheaper in Britain than in those two countries. On revenue per employee and the number of BT employees per 10,000 lines, we lag behind the best. British Telecom has a revenue of $97,000 per employee per year. Pacific Telesis in the United States has a revenue of $147,000, while NYMEX, which is also in the United States, has a revenue of $166,000. The revenue of STET in Italy is $129,000. The figures show that there is a great deal to be made up by BT.
BT has nearly 100 employees per 10,000 lines, Pacific Telesis has fewer than 50, and STET of Italy has fewer than 60. When BT mentioned that it had no fewer than 12 layers of management, it was clear that there was a great deal of scope for improvement. That is despite the fact that it is making £2·3 billion in profit, which is a 22 per cent rate of return on capital. That is significantly more than is made by its German or French counterparts. The Government are right, as was the Secretary of State last week, to call for more competition in what is still a highly monopolised sector. After all, 95 per cent. of domestic calls still go through BT. It is to the credit of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he has identified that as a problem which requires radical action.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to allow licences to anyone who is qualified to operate networks. He is right also to introduce price caps. That will mean that domestic calls will decrease in price over the next few years, while the cost of international calls will fall by 10 per cent. I hope that those reductions will happen quickly. The profit margins of BT on international calls vary from 43 per cent. to calls to France to 86 per cent. on turnover to Italy and 76 per cent. to South Africa. There is significant room for improvement in providing value for money on international calls.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to push for more equal access. I urge him to examine the proposals, by Mercury which imply that equal access can

be gained immediately. That is admittedly by the substantial investment, which I am sure it would be happy to make, of £300 million through System X into the domestic telephone market. It would then be able immediately to compete meaningfully with BT.
The Secretary of State is right to allow time for cable companies to build investment for their telephony services by being protected from competition from British Telecom and Mercury for seven years. It has not been mentioned so far, but he is also right to allow reduced rental charges and 120 minutes of non-peak time per quarter for low-rate users of the telephone service.
Most of all, the Secretary of State is right to recognise that making further inroads into the market demands still further opening up of the telecommunications market to new technologies. That is what it is all about. If the market is opened up and new technologies are provided, that will inevitably lead to the competition and choice that the consumer wants.
The personal communication network licences, of which there are three, will revolutionise the telephone industry. I understand that some big players are already coming into the market. As to very small aperture terminals, VSATs, I understand that in America there are 30,000 whereas in Europe, with a bigger population, there are only 600. They will bring further competition and technological innovation into the telecommunications industry.
I want to make four brief points on where the telecommunications industry should be going. First, British Telecom is, by its own definition, still grossly overstaffed. Its Sovereign operation seeks to reduce the number of workers from 240,000 to 160,000 over the next five years. That shows that there is significant overstaffing. I hope that it gets on with the reduction of staff in the interests of the consumer.
Secondly, although we have seen an expansion in quantity of Cellnet and Vodaphone services, I am afraid that the quality in many areas is not good. In London people often have to make four of five calls before they get a proper connection. Even then they may be interrupted by crossed lines. I urge the Government, through Oftel, to ask Cellnet and Vodaphone to provide a better quality service.
Thirdly, there is scope for British Telecom to reconsider the charge of 45p for a directory inquiry. I know that the service costs £250 million a year. Those who make most use of it—companies which use it to subsidise their activities—should be charged, but there is a case for a lower rate for consumers who make up to only 10 directory inquiries per quarter.
Fourthly, and most important in view of what we heard earlier, there is a strong case for the Government to make further disposals of its 48·7 per cent. holding in British Telecom. On the current market value of 335p per share, that holding is worth about £10 billion. I see no justification why, in an increasingly competitive market, the Government should have a 48·7 per cent. holding in any company——

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Can my hon. Friend give any indication, when he replies to the debate, of the Government's thinking on further sales of a proportion of their shareholding in BT? It would be eminently sensible not only for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) but because it would make


it more difficult, were we ever to suffer the inexplicable circumstance of a Labour Government coming to power, for them to privatise the company.

Mr. Coombs: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is unlikely, given Labour's policies and the esteem in which it is held by the electorate, that that eventuality would come about, but on grounds of principle it is wrong for the Government to have a 48·7 per cent. holding in any company that can make its own investment and which is properly regulated. The Government should make swift disposal of their holding, and the money should be reimbursed to the taxpayer.
We have heard some excellent speeches. The recurring theme has been that Labour's policies on public utilities generally, and particularly in respect of British Telecom are irrelevant, inefficient, and ideological. They belong not to the 21st century but the 19th century, and that is where we should consign them.

Ms. Joyce Quin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) on his good luck in winning such a high place in the order of tonight's debates, though I can hardly congratulate him on the wild misrepresentation of Opposition views in which he indulged. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should display more humility when reviewing the Government's overall industrial record, particularly given the current economic recession.
The hon. Members for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale), for Wyre (Mr. Mans), and for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs)—perhaps I should resist the temptation to make puns about Conservative Members' crossed wires—were at least rather more measured in their comments, which I welcome. The hon. Member for Gedling referred to the size of the attendance for these debates, but right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House acknowledge that they are the province of the Members of Parliament who introduce them, and that attendance by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties tends to be similar, depending on the subject.
Despite the Government's fine words, they have given no real guarantee that consumers will benefit from the extraordinary advances in telecommunications technology, which can bring down costs and increase the range of services. There is a danger that the Government, who are very ideological, may end up supporting competition for competition's sake, even at the expense of proper regulation to ensure that all consumers benefit from new technology. The Government risk sacrificing regulation on the altar of free market ideology.
The Government have not helped either British telecommunications equipment manufacturers. I referred earlier to the trade deficit in that sector, details of which were made available to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) by the Library, using official statistics. Nor have the Government assisted telecommunications research and development. We accept that private companies must take responsibility for their own R and D, but their European competitors work closely in partnership with private industry more positively than is the case in Britain.
Seven years after British Telecom's privatisation, Britain still has the highest charge for local calls in Europe, according to a national utility services report published on

5 March—and despite the remarks of the hon. Member for Gedling about call costs. Britain's installation and rental charges are also higher than in Europe. The installation charge in France is £21, and in Germany it is £24, but it is as much as £129 in Britain.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Lady comment on the availability of phones for sale on the continent? In quoting figures, the hon. Lady should take into account the cost of renting phones on the continent, compared with buying them in Britain; otherwise, she is not comparing like with like or making a fair comparison with the cost of operating a telephone in France or Germany. If the hon. Lady knows the figures, perhaps she will give them.

Ms. Quin: I only partly accept the hon. Gentleman's argument. I was making the point that installation and rental costs in Britain deter people on low incomes. While it is possible to purchase telephones more readily in Britain than on the continent, our particular concern is people on low incomes. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will give statistics relating to that aspect.
We believe that installation and rental charges are too high in comparison with our competitors. We are worried that there are no proper proposals to bring charges down and that the new low-user scheme will not do enough to help those who need a telephone as a lifeline.
Britain has slipped badly in terms of the number of households with telephones. Household connections stand at only 86·4 per cent. in the United Kingdom, compared with 92·2 per cent. in the United States of America, 90·7 per cent. in Germany and 97·7 per cent. in France. The rates of telephone usage are especially low among low-income groups.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Lady, because I know that the Minister will do that when he winds up. She described the Government's approach to this matter as ideological and cited her concern for people on limited means or low pay; I share that concern. However, surely the facts are there for all to see. We do not need to look at the crystal ball; it is in the book. We have records to show that, when BT was a nationalised industry, phones were not installed on time, it took a long time to get anyone to come along, and prices went up enormously—they doubled in one year.
Now, it is completely different. Prices are going down in real terms, installations are made quickly, phone boxes work, and there is a specific scheme to help the least well-off—low users. Will she at least give credit for the tremendous progress that has been made and acknowledge that the Government's record and British Telecom's record are a great deal better in those specific areas which I have cited than when the Labour party was last in power?

Ms. Quin: In developed countries everywhere, telephone ownership has increased greatly during the past 15 years—[Intervention.] I should be grateful if Conservative Members would stop shouting and would listen to what I have to say. When the hon. Member for Gedling was speaking, I listened carefully courteously, and I do not think that I interrupted him once. I should be grateful if hon. Members would do me the courtesy of listening.
We are worried about the fact that we compare unfavourably with other countries as regards the number of people who have a telephone. I represent a constituency


which is not especially well off, and I know from people who come to my regular constituency surgeries that many of them do not have telephones. When they come to see me, I ask for their address and whether they are on the telephone.
My experience bears out some of the figures that I have been given. For example, four out of 10 single pensioners do not have a telephone. Those figures show considerable geographical variations from one part of the country to another. In some of the poorer areas, telephone ownership is very low. For example, on council estates in the Northumberland coalfield, only 40 per cent. of people have a telephone. That is a low level of telephone ownership, and many people who would benefit from a telephone do not have one.
Judging by the figures that have been supplied to me, I am certain that our position is not good when compared to that in many other countries. I am sorry that the duopoly review has not specifically recognised the need for an increase in the penetration of telephone equipment.
When the Minister made a statement—I think it was a week ago—many hon. Members referred to the fact that we had an extensive mobile telephone network. While I welcome the fact that that network exists, I am aware that many consumers have had unsatisfactory experience with the mobile telephone network. If I may introduce a personal anecdote into the debate, I bought a mobile telephone from a company which has now gone into liquidation, Excel. It was not made clear to me, or to many others at the time that that equipment would not work in many areas, especially hilly areas—and that covers a substantial part of the north of England, of Scotland and of Wales. There ought to be stronger consumer safeguards to warn the customer of some of the difficulties associated with the mobile equipment being sold to them.
There have been many examples of unsatisfactory service agreements, partly because service arrangements have been separate from the supply of equipment in many cases, they have been unsatisfactory and have involved the consumer both in a long-term commitment and to substantial service charges. Does the Minister feel that increased consumer safeguards can be built into the mobile network system?
One service agreement between Excel and Systems Contracts Ltd. involved the consumer's making a commitment to pay substantial quarterly charges for seven years. It may be said that the consumer should read the small print; in this instance, the small print was minute, and appeared on the reverse side of the agreement. It could easily be missed by a busy purchaser of mobile equipment. Consumer legislation, as well as consumer regulation, must be strengthened.
There are now too many different types of public call box, and I hope that that will change. Many of us will have observed the long queues outside the few call boxes that now exist, and the availability of the many card phone boxes of various kinds that not many people have the cards to use. Clearly the telephone companies have a considerable incentive to go over to card phones: the purchase of cards in advance means that they get a lot of money up front. Less well-off consumers, however, may wish to make a one-off call with a coin and find that the equipment that they require is increasingly unavailable. I

should add that the problem is not restricted to the United Kingdom; the card system is increasingly used in other countries. None the less, it should be borne in mind that consumer demand for certain types of equipment is as important as consumer choice, as are the needs of those on low incomes.
The hon. Member for Gedling did not mention the charges that are being introduced for telephone inquiries—unlike the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, with whose comments I largely agreed. It is surely unjustified that such payment should be exacted from people who merely want information that will make them use the service anyway. As has already been said, people would find it very unsatisfactory if they were charged for telephoning British Rail to obtain timetable information that they wanted solely for the purpose of buying a ticket and getting on to a train.
Like directory inquiry charges, mobile telephone charges can be considerable. Indeed, people may incur charges simply by ringing the network, to be told that the telephone in question has been switched off—or, sometimes, that it is "not responding", which gives the caller hope that it may respond in a few minutes, although it may indeed have been switched off. That is another example of the need for increased consumer safeguards.
We do not feel that the British telecommunications equipment industry is in a satisfactory state. In 1979, we had a trade surplus; this year, we have a deficit of several hundred million pounds, which we consider very much part of the Government's failure to assist manufacturing industry. Earlier, I mentioned investment in new technology, in which regard—despite recent advances—we are still lagging behind our competitors. We are not happy about that.
The framework of our response to the duopoly review is that we believe that stronger and more balanced regulation is necessary to secure the best possible public service for the British people; that further competition can be endorsed when it is proved to be in the public interest; that new targets should be set for increasing the penetration of basic telephony to bring the United Kingdom up to European levels; that policies to meet the widest range of customer needs and to encourage the faster spread of new services are needed; and that development and research into telecommunications technology, including fibre optics, to help British Telecom and the United Kingdom industry to compete in the world market are essential.
Despite comments made by Conservative Members, we would like the Government to establish clear performance targets for telephone companies, but this can be done in consultation with the industry. It can also be done in consultation with consumer interests. We would like the Government to give a clear commitment to improving investment in research and development. Instead of ensuring that telecommunications benefits just a few competing companies, will the Government now give a commitment to all consumers and to the country as a whole?

The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): We have had an excellent debate and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell) for choosing this subject, for winning the ballot


by whatever means and for moving the motion with such ability. I am grateful to him for his comments about me, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale) for remembering that I have pursued an interest in these policies for a number of years, as many of my hon. Friends have done with such success. As we can see, their support has been crucial in delivering such a good policy for the telecommunications industry in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling told us of the many great improvements that we have seen in the telecommunications industry and in the service to customers in recent years. He explained that these were based on opening up choice and opportunity, and he asked why Labour Members were not here to discuss this vital industry, one of the fastest-growing and most important in the modern economy. The Labour party is represented just by the shadow spokeslady and one of her hon. Friends. It is a sign that they are not that interested in this crucial industry and are ashamed of their policies in this important area.
The hon. Member for Gedling told us that the Labour party is in favour of nationalisation, an old-fashioned policy which every other country in the world is in the process of abandoning; and he explained just how out of touch the Labour party is with the trend of international policy towards the harnessing of competitive private capital and the introduction of liberalisation. Labour wants to nationalise on the cheap, but we note that the Labour Government never provided telephones on the cheap when they were in charge of a nationalised monopoly in the 1970s and in a position to do so.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) agrees with her hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) when he said only recently that the Labour party was against all privatisations because they provided for the element of private profit-making. That is one of the big divides between hon. Members on the two sides of the House; we believe that profits are important in order to encourage investment and to send the right signals about where that investment should be made. The restoration and growth of profitability in all sorts of industrial sectors in the past decade has underpinned the great growth in investment and the improvement in industrial prospects in many areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North expressed surprise at the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in the recent exchanges in the House, when our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his important statement. I share his surprise. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. He seemed to think that prices going down meant that they were going up. He seemed to think that, if one said that prices would have to go down by 6·25 per cent. it real terms each year, people would be worse off. He seemed even to suggest that, although inflation would be well below 6·25 per cent. and cash prices would be going down, people would be worse off.
All I can say is that, if that is being worse off, I would like to be worse off. I like my prices going down, and I am very glad that there is a strong regulator there, backed by a strong Government who say that these prices shall be put down rather than up, as always seemed to happen under the Labour Administration in the 1970s.
I am also glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling praised the work of the Office of

Telecommunications. Like him, I think that it has done a marvellous job; I know that there were divided counsels about that in the early days of the policy, but I think that we would all agree now that Oftel has come through triumphantly, has been the customers' friend and has been the guardian of the competitive market. My hon. Friend was right to remind us just how wrong Labour was when the Bill went through the House, and also at the time of subsequent announcements. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong in the policies that it is peddling for such an important industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North was right to say that the crucial breakthrough was to regard the individuals who were taking the service from British Telecom as customers. We made that important transition, and service quality and other matters have generally improved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) gave a lucid description of what it was like to have a telephone service under a nationalised monopoly compared with the choice, better service quality and lower real prices of the liberalised marketplace of the late 1980s and early 1990s. He reminded us of the importance of wider ownership and the crucial role that the telecommunications privatisation played, both in this country and worldwide, in promoting the idea of the mass sale of shares to the investing public. It involved the important participation of the employees of British Telecom, who responded magnificently when they were given the opportunity to take a stake in what is partly their company.
Our policies have encouraged a major surge in inward investment into this country, both in the telecommunications industry and in others. It is now an important magnet both to the City of London and to the wider nation that we have such a good telecommunications system. People are aware that it will improve even more as a result of the new capital, the innovation and the new ideas that are in that dynamic marketplace.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre that when cabling the country, it is crucial that it is introduced as and when there is a demand for its use. The Labour party has the strange idea that someone—presumably the paying customer or even the taxpayer—should pay an additional tax to run cable past people's homes when they do not want it. What an absurd proposition. We will cable the country rapidly as a result of private capital and of the free choice of individuals and businesses. Indeed, that is happening—there are now 135 cable franchises, some of which have many customers and are up and running. Other franchisees will do the same quickly now that they have their franchises.
A large amount of fibre-optic cable is already in place for trunk telephony, because the demand is there. It would be crass folly to waste the nation's and the telephone customers' resources providing cable for people who do not want it, and before the demand exists. The costs would be so large that it would be one way of bankrupting British Telecom and the nation.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East raised a point about research and development that had already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre. British Telecom spent £228 million last year on research and development. It is not possible accurately to compare its percentage with that of some of the other telephone companies around the world because we must take into account what those other companies do. The companies


with which the hon. Lady compared British Telecom are also manufacturing and designing new equipment for the industry, and those functions take place in different companies in the United Kingdom.
Is the hon. Lady aware that, for example, in 1989 Standard Telephones and Cables spent £271 million—a very large sum in relation to its turnover—on research and development? That shows that we need to consider manufacturing as well as service provision if we want accurately to measure how much research and development is taking place.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) drew attention to the large price reductions that have already taken place, and there are more to come under a more aggressive pricing formula than we enjoyed in the 1980s. He also drew attention to the improvement in the quality of service. He said that more competition was needed, and how right he is. That is the whole tenor of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's policy and of the document that he recently presented to the House. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise of our policy and statement.
My hon. Friend asked whether I had any further news on the sale of British Telecom shares. I cannot add to the position that the Government have made clear over the years, which is that the shares will be sold when the circumstances of the company and market conditions permit.
My hon. Friend also drew attention to the great opportunities available through the personal communications network licences and satellite services. I agree with him, and I believe that equal access is very important. When it is up and running, someone with a phone in his home or business will be able to gain access to all the routes around the country no matter who owns the trunk or local network. The billing would be sorted out and the customer would get the best possible deal, the best quality of service and best value for money as a result of that equal access process. We will be pioneers in that respect in comparison to our partners and colleagues in western Europe.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East gave a surprising insight into Labour policy. She attacked our policy as competition for competition's sake at the expense of proper regulation. Labour did not have a separate regulator for the telephone system in the 1970s when it could have had one. Labour did not worry about price control and there were no price controls on British Telecom in the 1970s. The real prices usually rose, often by a great amount as my hon. Friends have said, when they were free to do so in respect of general price control policies. Under our liberalised market, prices have decreased in real terms every year. Under Labour's stage-managed market, they usually rose in real terms.

Ms. Quin: We would not return to the 1970s in terms of not having a regulator attached to the industry. However, does the Minister accept that this Government have reduced the status for consumer protection within the Government below the status that the Labour Government attached to it? The responsibility for consumer protection lies with a junior Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. Under the Labour Government, a senior Minister could investigate prices.

Mr. Redwood: What people do matters. We have introduced enormous consumer protection in the telecommunications industry.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Redwood: I fear that I do not have time to give way, because I want to answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East.
We have introduced substantial improvements by giving customers new rights, by insisting on payments for unsatisfactory performance and, above all, by introducing extremely firm price controls. The Labour party never suggested real price declines like those introduced under our price control formulas. We have heard no criticism of the strengthening price control from 4·5 to 6·25 per cent. apart from the extraordinary fact that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East—the hon. Member for Gateshead, East's boss—seemed to believe that that involved prices increasing. However, there has been no formal critique from the Labour party of our tough price controls.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East said that more people should have access to phones. That is precisely why we supported the policy of competition and price control on the dominant producer in the marketplace in an attempt to lower prices so that people could have more access to phone use. That has been happening year after year in the later 1980s and early 1990s.
We have now with BT—I pay tribute to BT for this—produced a better scheme, the low-user scheme. The rental will be halved for those who qualify for the scheme and they will receive 30 free-call units a quarter. If they use that entitlement to the full, they will have the benefit of more than £45 a year off their phone bills. That is a sharp improvement and it must improve access to phones, which is exactly what we want. I should have thought that instead of running down BT and the industry, the hon. Member for Gateshead, East might have a few nice words to say about that excellent low-user scheme, its generous terms and the way in which it would spread phone usage among the people she and I would like to see using phones.
The hon. Lady also made adverse comments about mobile phones. The mobile phones that I have used have been extremely good. They provide an excellent service and offer us new choices and facilities. I am sorry that the hon. Lady had a disappointing experience. She obviously chose the wrong one. I hope that she will try again, because I million people are using mobile phones. They seem to find them most acceptable; they provide those people with new opportunities to stay in touch with their businesses and other engagements. I have noted the hon. Lady's comments about lease agreements and their terms and clauses.
The hon. Lady then complained, quite extraordinarily, that there are now too many call-boxes—or did she say that there were too many different types of call-box? Choice is a good thing. One of the main criticisms when liberalisation and privatisation were announced was that there would be no more call-boxes. It was said that they would all be closed down and that none of them would work. We were told it would all be a disaster. Instead, the number of call-boxes has soared from 77,000 to 100,000 and the number that work has increased even more. Practically all of them—some 96 per cent.—now work and we admire the way in which the improvement has been achieved.

Anglo-Soviet Relations

Mr. Terry Fields: This debate is important, not because I have anything to do with it but because it deals with world affairs and the relationship between this country and the Soviet Union.
Any breakdown in world relationships can have serious effects, as we saw in the Gulf war. I do not expect the Minister to agree with any of my arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who will reply from the Labour Front Bench, may also experience difficulties. Nevertheless, in a so-called democratic society, I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, will, as always, defend my right to express my view on behalf of all the minorities in our society. If a vote were taken at the end of the debate, it would be stretching the loyalty of the left of the Labour party to hope that they would go even three quarters of the way along the road with me.
In a debate on the Soviet Union and eastern Europe on 4 March, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said:
The distorting prism of Marxist theology lies shattered on the ground. The old style of Soviet Government has failed the Soviet people and, for that reason, is finished.
That bogus linkage was made intentionally to confuse the two issues when the events in the Soviet Union are analysed.
The Minister went on to say that Great Britain's
policy is to encourage, to stimulate and, where we can, to reward political and economic reform in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe.
Those remarks smack of imperalism, paternalism and even a little impudence. We say that we do not want to interfere in the internal policies of those nations but that, so long as their policies are conducive to our way of thinking, we shall reward them.
The Minister of State continued:
We have no right—indeed, we lack the capacity—to influence the way in which the Soviet peoples will ultimately determine their future.
A little further in the debate, the Minister outlined the Government's proposals for a policy on the Soviet Union:
We must recognise that within the Soviet Union the greatest shortage is not of food, but of expertise and that is precisely what we have to offer. We can offer knowledge to develop an entrepreneurial system; training and advice to those engaged in new projects and market-oriented enterprises; and assistance to those engaged in constructing the legal framework for a market economy. That approach is the objective of the United Kingdom's know-how fund for the Soviet Union and it was also the purpose of the Community's technical assistance programme."—[Official Report, 4 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 82–84.]
That is a clear, capitalistic analysis of a capitalist programme to resolve the problems in the Soviet Union.
The theme of the debate is Anglo-Soviet relations in the light of recent developments in the Soviet Union. If we want to look to the future, we must examine what is happening today and has happened in the past, in the light of what the Minister of State said. We must consider the economic and social conditions that prevail today, which might prevail in the future and which certainly prevailed in the past. The Minister outlined the Government's programme. Let us make no bones about it—it is a Conservative, capitalist policy. I am not a capitalist, but a member of the Labour party, which I joined to change the

nature of society. I propose a policy for workers in this country and in the Soviet Union which is far from the agenda that the Minister will propose tonight.
In my book, foreign policy is an extension of domestic policy, and I do not believe that the majority of workers in this country have much confidence in the Government's domestic policy. It logically follows that they can have no confidence in the Government's foreign policy. Therefore, we have to establish the veracity of the prognostications of the British Government and the programme of world capitalism.
I do not want to go into the Gulf war in detail but it impinges on world relations. Exactly what was the United States doing in the Gulf? With the demise of the Warsaw pact, the National Security Council in the United States, in a paper to President Bush, said clearly:
We shall need to replace the Warsaw Pact. Saddam Hussein and Iraq are the rationale for the continuation of cold war spending with the decline of the Warsaw Pact.
That is a written fact and a policy of the United States.
Our relationship with the Soviet Union has implications for not only the United Kingdom but the world. The Minister talked about the prism of Marxism being smashed on the floor in Russia, but neither Marx, Engels nor Lenin ever imagined that a state with the grotesque totalitarian character of Stalin's dictatorship would arise in the course of the world's transition from capitalism to socialism, which is part of my perspective. In my perspective, the establishment of the first worker state through the revolution in Russia in 1917 was the highest achievement in human history. The Minister will not agree, and others in the Chamber tonight will also disagree. Yet, under the rule of bureaucracy, the same state of which I applauded the inception has degenerated into a form of rule which is barely distinguishable from Hitler's fascism.
Leon Trotsky, one of the joint leaders of the Russian revolution in 1917, said in 1936, 20 years after the revolution—but he could equally make the same points today—
However we may interpret the nature of the present Soviet state, one thing is indubitable. At the end of its second decade of existence, the state has not only not died away but not even begun to die away. Worst than that, it has grown into a hitherto unheard of apparatus of compulsion. The bureaucracy has not only disappeared, yielding its place to the masses, but it has turned into an uncontrolled force dominating the masses. The army not only has not been replaced by an armed people but has given birth to a privileged officer caste crowned with marshalls, while the people, the armed bearers of the dictatorship are now forbidden in the Soviet Union to carry non explosive weapons.
Trotsky went on:
With the utmost stretch of fantasy, it 'would be difficult to imagine a contrast more striking than that which exists between the schema of a worker state according to Marx, Engels and Lenin and the actual state now headed by Stalin"—
and today by Gorbachev.
While, they continue to publish the works of Lenin, which espouse the ideas of Marx, in excerpts and distorted by the centre, the present leaders of the Soviet Union and their ideological representatives do not even raise questions about the causes of such a criminal divergence from the programme and the reality of the situation there. The Marxist programme of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and of


Lenin and Trotsky and the group at the head of the revolution have been diverted and diffused, all allegedly in the name of socialism and communism.
Today, Soviet workers believe in neither Stalinism, Gorbachevism or Yeltsinism. I do not say that academically but as someone who has been over to Russia and discussed with Soviet workers. I continue to correspond with people in that part of the world. Workers understand in the Soviet Union that Gorbachev and Yeltsin are but different wings of the same bureaucratic elite, who are responsible for the crisis both in the past and at present. What were at first mere distortions in the system developed into the system itself. Quantitative change became qualitative change and the bureaucracy entrenched itself in state power as a force with material interest.
Bourgeois law on distribution prevailed, but the means of production after 1917 was in state property as it remains today. In the first years of the workers' state, Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks feared that, if the Russian revolution remained isolated, capitalism would be restored. We have seen elements of that today in the Soviet Union. That possibility remained inherent in the conflict between bourgeois and socialist tendencies in the state that existed at that time.
The counter-revolution developed in a different way. The bureaucracy usurped power from the working class, but continued to rest on the same basis of a nationalised and planned economy. It carried through a political, not a social, counter-revolution. That showed the superiority of a nationalised and planned economy over capitalism. The bureaucracy defended that economy, because they feared to provoke the Russian working class by moving towards capitalism and also because, with an expanding economy, it was assured of its increasing privilege. Again, that has been exposed by Yeltsin and others in analysing his and Gorbachev's defects.
With nationalisation and planning—even though at huge cost—the Soviet economy developed rapidly under the rule of bureaucracy at a rate of 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. a year at its height. That rate has never been achieved in the history of capitalism. In contrast, between the first and second world wars, capitalism made no fundamental breakthrough in developing the forces of production but lurched from crisis to crisis.
As I shall show later, the conditions in which the Soviet bureaucracy exists today are different. On the basis of a nationalised and planned economy and even with all its warts, faults and mismanagement, the Soviet Union today has more scientists, engineers and technicians per head of the population than any other country. It can send expeditions into space and has the most highly educated working class of any major country, east or west.
On the basis of bureaucratic rule, the Soviet Union has not been able to deploy all its resources even to catch up with the forces of production and labour productivity of the most advanced capitalist countries. It cannot even guarantee supplies, let alone supplies of adequate quality, of the most basic food in the shops.
In the statement that I mentioned earlier, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said:
We must recognise that within the Soviet Union, the greatest shortage is not of food".—[Official Report, 4 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 84.]

I dispute that, and use as my reference point Andrei Orlov, the deputy chairman of the States Commission for Economic Reform in the Soviet Union. He admits that, of 1,200 basic commodities which should be available in big cities, only 56 can be bought on a regular basis. Where obtainable, sugar, soap and detergent are rationed almost everywhere, and meat, sausages and butter are rationed in one city in five.
The Independent on Sunday reported in May last year that a British journalist accompanied two Moscow housewives on a shopping expedition with 60 roubles to spend. They visited 13 shops in three different shopping areas. They took three hours to do their shopping but, at the end of the day, they had managed to spend only 24.27 roubles. They could find no decent meat, rice, cheese, eggs or even fruit. Shops were unaccountably closed, queues were too long to wait in—for example, for flour—or the produce was too rotten to buy. They bought barely enough for one evening meal, let alone for a weekend. That is the real symptom of the crisis of Stalinism in the Soviet Union today.
Last week we celebrated—in this country and internationally—International Women's Day. That coincided with a poll published in the Soviet Weekly on 7 March, which questioned women in the Soviet Union on their attitudes to the state and what was happening. A third of the 2,700 women polled said that they had no faith in perestroika because they had no trust in its leaders. Over half the women believed that its policies were unrealisable. Nearly half cited deteriorating food supplies, consumer goods and children's clothes.
Perestroika has had no impact on the day-to-day reality of women's existence. Significantly, although only 1 per cent. of women who work in most of the Soviet Union have been on strike, one in five of those polled now say that they would take industrial action, given the chance. That opinion poll reflects the rift between the power structures and the ordinary people, and the dichotomy between the expectations raised by perestroika and the harsh realities of civil life today.
I do not know where in Moscow or in Leningrad the Minister of State did his shopping when he said that there was not a problem about food. When I was there last May, that was not the case. It was explained to me by a Soviet citizen who said that the Soviet person today is like man, the primitive hunter. He goes out in the morning not knowing whether he is going to come back with food for his wife, his children and the rest of his family. That is the reality today.
Unlike the Minister, I did not spend my time in the British embassy; I spent my time in Siberia. Perhaps some of the comrades in this establishment think that that is where I should be. I spent my time with miners who had been on strike, and who had formed strike committees and town committees. I saw some of the deprivation there. I spent time in Leningrad and in Moscow, not in the best hotels, but living in workers' homes. To a small extent, I experienced what they were experiencing, so that I could report back faithfully to the British working class.
Six years of perestroika have solved none of the problems of the Soviet people. The standards for some may have improved—for the black marketeers and for the sharks who are the natural constituency of the capitalist class—but not for the masses. That is the reality. Food and commodities are being diverted. Some of the co-operatives


and private enterprises, which are so laudable in the philosophy of the Conservatives, are extensive because of that.
I spoke to a woman who could not exist on her wages as a schoolteacher in Moscow. She does two or three jobs to reach a decent standard of living. Her response was, "Given the background of black market conditions, I would do better working in the ticket office at the Bolshoi ballet, because I should then be able to make a few bob slipping tickets to the bureaucracy and to the privileged in society. I should be better off despite all my qualifications.
I spoke to a factory worker who had won the big prize in a factory of some 10,000 workers. When I asked what she had won, she said that she had won a ticket. I asked what the ticket was for, and she said, "The ticket entitles me to go into a shop. If it has a coat, I will have the chance to buy it. It would have cost me three months' wages." She was the heroine of the factory for winning the ticket. That shows the shortages and the cost of living for ordinary families.
The idea of the market is easily acceptable to some people in the Soviet Union. They have never had it so bad and they believe that the market is the key to heaven in living conditions. I spoke at the founding conference of the Independent Workers Movement in Novokuznetsk in Siberia. Workers from all over the Soviet Union tried to achieve freedom and democracy for themselves, and they wanted to break out from the old structures.
I addressed the conference, and upset some of them when I asked them to which market they were attracted. I asked whether it was the stock market—the spivs' paradise, where people gamble daily on what a commodity will cost next week, next month or next year—or whether it was the market that we understand in this country, the market of the capitalist which exploits and destroys people. Such is the desperate state of the masses over there that even capitalism can appear to be an attraction.
The bureaucracy has become intoxicated with the apparent success of capitalism in the advanced countries in the past eight years. They little realise, because it has not been explained to them, that the success has been based on world expansion, and especially on the rise in oil prices. Capitalism offers no way out for any of those regimes. The consequences are already being revealed in Poland, which is among the furthest along the road to the market. It has seen massive price rises and growing unemployment since the beginning of the year. Yes, there are now goods in the shops, but only the privileged few can afford to buy them. The same situation will follow, to the extent that the market replaces the plan as governor of the economy, in East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
I am sure that western capitalists in general, and representatives of the Conservative party in particular, are rubbing their hands with glee at what they falsely regard as the failure of socialism. They are not prepared to pump massive amounts of investment into eastern Europe or the Soviet Union, because they are not confident. There are safer opportunities to reap profits. We have seen the monetary unification of West Germany and East Germany. Effectively, capitalism has been restored in parts of the east. Once the Berlin wall had been brought down, West German capitalism was driven rapidly on this road.. The alternative was a mass exodus of the people of East Germany to the west.
West German capitalism declares itself ready to pay the price of unification. The west Germans are prepared to

pour state and private funds into the east. But that does not remove the inevitable reality of rising unemployment, which is occurring even as we speak tonight. There will be attacks on the living standards of working people. Since monetary union in July last year, the number of unemployed people in east Germany is reported to have increased by 40,000 a week. It is estimated that the rate of unemployment will rise to between 60 per cent. and 70 per cent.
Should capitalism be restored in the Soviet Union, the contradictions of world capitalism will be increased rather than eased. The underlying antagonism between capitalism and the planned economy has been a key factor limiting inter-imperialist rivalry. By contrast, a new capitalist Soviet Union will not only force the United States, Japan and Germany to engage in more fierce competition, but become an imperialist rival in its own right. The fundamental reason for the inability to restore capitalism in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union to promise the prosperity of west Germany, Sweden, Japan or the United States is that the productivity of labour in Stalinist countries is only half the level of that in the advanced capitalist countries.
That is now recognised even by some sections of the intelligentsia in the Soviet Union. In a keynote speech at a recent meeting of intellectuals, Boris Kazarlitsky, an elected member of the official Moscow Soviet, warned that Soviet capitalism would have more in common with Brazil or Colombia than the models we have seen in eastern Europe. That is a reality arising from the backwardness of productivity and from the decline and abuse of the system over the decades.
Of course, there is a price to be paid for going down the capitalist road. This was recently spelt out in a World bank report, which said that no dollars would be provided except for private ownership. What cynicism. Starving people cry out even for handouts, but private ownership is to be set above the needs of people. But that is capitalism all over. In the debate on 4 March, the Minister of State said that he did not want to interfere. But interference does take place—indeed, is taking place.
Recently, the International Monetary Fund sent three American gentleman with their briefcases to Poland to negotiate a loan to that country. A condition of the loan was that the Polish Finance Minister would be sacked, and a gentleman who was unpopular because of his economic measures appointed in his place. Those economic measures entailed high inflation, planned closures and redundancies, and led to the failure of the outgoing Prime Minister in the presidential elections that have just taken place.
The guy who was imposed by the International Monetary Fund not only runs the finance of the country, but also has the final say in who should fill various Cabinet posts. According to a former senior Solidarity adviser, the result is that Poland now has an apolitical Government, totally unrepresentative of the people and functioning in what amounts to a banana republic. That is what international capitalism is about—client states which themselves have no say.
It was said glibly that there would be no interference, but the size of the crisis in the Soviet Union is enormous. That is something that we must bear in mind when we are considering future relations between the Soviet Union and


this country and indeed the world. The movements for autonomy in the various republics and the splits in society must be studied.
We have seen on our television screens demonstrations in Leningrad, Moscow and other parts of the Soviet Union. A recent demonstration coincided with the news that the Soviet economy is facing a dive into recession so deep that its own official forecasters are making comparisons with the famines which beset the country in the early 1930s.
Gosplan—the official planning institution of the Soviet Union—has produced a forecast which shows that Russia's gross national product will fall this year by at least 11·6 per cent. whatever policies are followed. The country can carry on with the Stalinist regime of Gorbachev or go over to capitalism, but the gross national product will fall by 11·6 per cent. this year alone.
Again according to Gosplan, industrial production will fall by 15 per cent. and agricultural production, much needed in the cities, will fall by 5 per cent. The forecasters say that the decline in the gross national product could be as much as 16 per cent. unless the Government introduce a number of hard measures, including price rises, very soon. There are non-existent products and a crisis in the economy. If people are to eat, prices will rocket. That is the only way to resolve the problems.
I have spoken about rising economic nationalism, and that has exacerbated food and other shortages. For instance, Leningrad is suffering a cut of 70 per cent. in meat supplies because of the problems created by the recession in other parts of the Soviet Union.
According to the draft version of the new treaty due to be signed this weekend, each republic will have a share in the gold, diamond and hard currency reserves of the Soviet Union. Unfortunately, the recipients of that largesse will also take on responsibility for the Soviet debt. That is something for us to consider. It now stands at around $60 billion, with $7 billion more in unpaid debts to foreign exporters accumulated by Soviet companies recently granted trading rights.
The Soviet Union's official reserves have traditionally been held tight by the centre under great secrecy, but the veil has been partially lifted. Earlier this year, 234 tonnes of gold were sold in Moscow and $5 billion-worth of diamonds have been promised to a Swiss firm, the De Beers corporation, during the next five years.
A week or so ago Mr. Uri Poletayev, the deputy chairman of the bank of foreign and economic affairs, revealed that the bank had repaid $12·5 billion-worth of short-term deposits to western banks which had stopped making commercial loans to the Soviet Union because of the high risks.
The crisis is desperate. It is against that background that the release of $1 billion food aid by the EEC and the resumption of negotiations with the IMF and the World bank, both frozen after the repression of the Baltic states, hold out only minimal relief for the masses in the Soviet Union.
The Minister offers the workers and toilers in the Soviet Union capitalist solutions, holding up the capitalist system as the epitome of all that is good in life. I wish that he would explain the crisis in the American economy, which has a budget and trading deficit and 30 million people

living below the poverty line. The centre of international capitalism is a crises-ridden system. The recession is biting there, as it is biting here. Japan's economy is slowing down. Capitalist countries are doing nothing about hunger, deprivation and poverty in the third world.
If capitalism is so wonderful, I am sure that the Minister will be only too proud to tell people in the Soviet Union that, as Radio 4 reported this afternoon, business closures in Great Britain increased by 77 per cent. in 1990 and are forecast to increase by 25 per cent. this year. Interest rates may be falling dramatically, but can he explain to the Soviet people what the market and capitalism means in Britain? Figures from the CBI and the business community show that, every day, 100 businesses are closing, 3,000 workers are being thrown on to the stones through redundancy, and 125 homes are being repossessed.
The national health service is in total disarray, and I do not want to hear any nonsense from Conservative Members about more investment in real terms. Our families are dependent on hospital treatment but cannot get it because of bed closures and queues. That is a wonderful example for the Soviet masses.
Homelessness is evident every night of the week at the entrance to this place. During the recent cold spell, homeless people had to lie in the snow because they had no home, yet the Government make no provision for house building. Poverty is endemic, education has suffered and interest rates and inflation are high.
How should workers resolve those contradictions and difficulties? I spoke at a meeting of Soviet miners, who were the vanguard of the struggle in 1988 and were lauded by our then Prime Minister. It was a different story when Arthur Scargill and the national Union of Mineworkers fought against pit closures and for democracy in the coalfields. The Government support people who fight for democracy abroad, but when it is closer to home they say, "Hey, leave it out."
This month, millions of Soviet miners have started indefinite strikes for higher pay, better food and decent housing. Their strike two years ago for more food and basic essentials—such as soap—in a civilised society revealed the depth of popular anger at the failure of perestroika to deliver better living standards. The latest strike, which was co-ordinated by the conference that I was priviliged to attend, is for more reforms and pay increases.
I have great affinity with the mining community in this country. I went down a mine in Siberia and saw the dreadful conditions in which those miners work. Having risked their lives on behalf of the Soviet Union, they live in ramshackle homes with no food for their families. That leads them to conclude that things must change.
In the Soviet Union, 7 million working days were lost through strikes between January and September 1989. In the biggest movement since 1917, 100,000 miners struck in Siberia and the Ukraine in July last year. The rate of strikes last year was higher than the year before. Independent democratic unions are being established by miners and by other workers who have increasing political demands. The industrial struggle is moving on to a political plain. A Siberian metal worker told a British capitalist journalist:


Theoretically, everything is the people's property. In fact, an uncontrolled apparatus decides everything. The only answer is to make us real masters of the factories and of the land.
Against that background, I held discussions with those people.
On 4 March, the Minister said something that I agreed with: that the old-style government has failed. Of course it has failed, but those people have been told that the system that they have been living under—bankrupt and bureaucratic, with fiddling, black marketeers, repression and a lack of democractic rights—is socialism. The theoretical works of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky have nothing to do with that so-called "socialism". It is like feeding me plaster of paris in a white bottle and telling me that it is milk. When my inside is destroyed, a doctor advises milk to treat the ailment, so I get another bottle of plaster of paris. That is the experience of workers in the Soviet Union.
All these theroretical works are dirty words for workers in the Soviet Union. I was there on 1 May. I asked them whether they would be singing the Internationale. "Forget it," they said. I asked whether there would be demonstrations. "Forget that, too," they said. They do not want to know about a planned economy, Marxism or anything else. They have been told that socialism is responsible for homelessness, shortages and deprivation, but it is not. The finest planned economy in the world is mismanaged by the bureaucracy—the privileged elite and the nomenklatura. There was falsification by the Stalinists and capitalist propaganda.
There was a chink of light in all the misery and despondency. When I said that I was a socialist, they looked at me quizzically—just as those people on the Conservative Benches look at me as though I have come from another planet. I explained what we mean by democratic socialism. I talked about control of industry by the workers—of nationalised industries under the control and management of workers. That failed in this country because of our mixed economy, with capitalist bosses in charge, because the interests of- the workers are diametrically opposed to those of management.
When I asked a Siberian foundry worker whether he wanted real democratic socialism, with a say in what is produced and where the profits go, he said that he did. I referred to the accountability of elected representatives, both political and trade union representatives, and to the right of trade union members to require their representatives to give an account of their stewardship. He said that he would like that, too. When I asked whether he would like those who are accountable to the workers not to be too far removed from general conditions on the shop floor and not to live in dachas, with the missus walking around dripping in mink while housewives in Moscow, Leningrad and elsewhere cannot provide decent food for their families, he said that he wanted equality in society and democratic management of the economy. We may call it socialism; he may call it something else, but the essence of socialism is the same, despite the fact that it has been dragged through the gutter.
The Soviet working classes and their newly formed democratic organisations are pioneers, starting again from scratch. However, the structures are there, and there is a degree of state planning. They are searching for a programme. Anatoly Lukyanov, the chairman of the

Supreme Soviet, was reported on 11 March as saying about the Soviet Union that Soviet society was white hot and that one match could set it afire.
That is the prospect for millions of workers in the Soviet Union. It is in turmoil; it is a hotbed of discontent. The workers are looking for direction and were present at these meetings and discussions. Leon Trotsky's book "The Revolution Betrayed" is being distributed in the Soviet Union, and is being grabbed by workers who want to read the real history of the Soviet Union. They want to find out for themselves why Stalinist bureaucracy railroaded them down the road that is responsible for today's conditions.
This debate is part of our current and future discussions on Anglo-Soviet relations. The Marxist perspective is conditional on the time bomb of social contradictions and discontent, both nationally and internationally, but particularly today in the Soviet Union. In 1936, Trotsky said that the fate of eastern Europe and the USSR would in the last analysis be decided by the struggle of living social forces internationally and in the world arena—that it would not be decided by the commentators on capitalism or by the proponents of the capitalist system people with pipe dreams, in quest of more profits and the exploitation of fresh markets to increase their wealth.
The system is bankrupt, exploitative and immoral. When planning their strategy, the Government should take no comfort from what is happening and from what will happen in the Soviet Union. If they think that they will make a fast buck from it, they can forget it. They will have to look for it elsewhere. As a socialist and a Marxist, I remain optimistic—and, as ever, realistic—about the size of the task that we and workers everywhere still have to do. We have consummate confidence in the future.
In time, there will be a socialist revolution in this country. We shall look after our friends when it comes. There will be a socialist revolution in Europe and in the USSR, and we shall create the new world order. We will put people before profit. We will protect young and old alike, allowing older people to live out their declining years with a little dignity. That is a socialist perspective. It is the only one that holds out any long-term solutions to the contradictions and crises facing workers in this country and in the Soviet Union, who must work, in mutually acceptable forums to resolve the problems created in this country and the west by acquisitive capitalism, and in the east by bankrupt Stalinism.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) on his success in the ballot and on his choice of subject. I confess that I wish that he had called it "British-Soviet relations", but I hope that he will not be upset by that detail. He spoke with a wealth of personal experience in various parts of the Soviet Union, and he offered us a theoretical analysis.
My hon. Friend said that he assumed that not only the Government but the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman would differ from his analysis. I will not disappoint him: we do, indeed, differ. My hon. Friend implied that 1917 was distorted by Stalin. I suggest that inherent in the events of 1917 were the purge of the Kulaks, the purges of the 1930s and democratic centralism. Perhaps, too, it is inherent in human nature to succumb to what Kolokovsky called the totalitarian temptation, which is that those who


see a brighter future but fail to erect checks and balances fail to understand the faults in human nature and are thus easily disappointed—even though they cry with optimism as they are led to the scaffold, as were some of the revolutionaries in France and, in the 1930s, in the Soviet Union.
My hon. Friend set out the alternative scenario of Trotsky. Where and when in any past or present society can he find a model that fulfilled or fulfils the criteria for a society that he has outlined? If he cannot name one, does not that suggest that his analysis may be faulty and that part of the problem lies in human nature and in the totalitarian temptation to which I have alluded?

Mr. Terry Fields: I cannot give my hon. Friend an example, but that does not prevent me from striving towards a democratic society in which we control our own destinies. My hon. Friend's argument apes the one thrown out by the opponents of socialism about the Stalinist excesses of the eastern bloc and of the Soviet Union. Clause IV (4) of the Labour party's constitution speaks of democratic control of society by the masses, and whatever else may change in my party, that clause will remain on my membership card.

Mr. Anderson: I invite my hon. Friend to consider again the reasons why, perhaps, there has been no such society and there is no such society. I remind him of the temptations that in the Soviet Union distorted 1917 through to the purges, to the Kulaks and to the totalitarianism that perhaps was the inevitable result of the principles of Stalin, which brooked no obstacle and no attempt to ascertain, as Cromwell might have said, whether there was another way. So be it.
I return to the key part of the debate, which is the nature of British-Soviet relations in the light of recent developments in the Soviet Union. My starting point is the internal state of the Soviet Union. We are passing through a period of extreme uncertainty, even confusion, with the paralysis of policy-making in the Soviet Union. We have a war of sovereignties between the different power structures in the Kremlin under President Gorbachev and the Russian Federation under Mr. Yeltsin. There are other challenges to the authority of the Kremlin in the Baltic republics, in Georgia and in other parts of the old Tsarist and Stalinist empire. The war of sovereignty is perhaps personified in the confrontation between President Gorbachev and Mr. Yeltsin. Some try to portray it as the conflict between the conservatives and the democrats.
Who would choose, with the multiplicity of conflicts, to be in the shoes of President Gorbachev? Who would be confident about the time scale or the direction of the massive movements that are now under way within the Soviet Union?
If one feels impatient and frustrated at the lack of progress and the current indecision, perhaps it is possible to be heartened by looking back over the past 10 years. It was 10 years ago that we saw the beginning of the new cold war. It was a time when President Reagan was referring to the Soviet Union as the evil empire. The then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), was creating a pale echo of that strident

Reaganite rhetoric in a speech in Canada. That was before she saw the new apparition of President Gorbachev in 1985 and thereafter.
I had reasons to read an issue of The House Magazine in 1985 that featured the 40th anniversary of the United Nations. I compared it with what appeared to in the edition of December 1990, to which, I think, the Minister contributed. In 1985, we were in the last part of the new cold war. There was the assumption in a series of articles that that war would continue. We can take heart from the substantial changes that have taken place over the past five years or so. Both in domestic and foreign policy, the situation in the Soviet Union has altered dramatically. We should appreciate the changes, be prepared to understand the changes and the transitions through which we are passing and be prepared to adjust our own policies accordingly.
Internally the effects of glasnost and perestroika can be seen, for example, in the mass demonstrations that took place last Sunday throughout the Soviet Union. More than 500,000 people protested against the conditions to which my hon. Friend was referring—the shortages, the corruption, the lack of democracy, the paralysis of policy. That would not and could not have taken place even only five years ago. On sees strikes among the miners and a new era of political freedom. Yet those internal moves to democracy have been accompanied by an accelerating economic decline and a feeling of hopelessness and impotence among the policy makers and the people.
Externally, the new spirit in the Soviet Union has had a marked effect over a wide area. We see it most dramatically in Europe with the dismantling of the Berlin wall, the unification of Germany and the end of the old Soviet empire in eastern Europe. But it is also seen more broadly in the new co-operation by the Soviet Union in arms control agreements and in the easing of international relations in many parts of the third world, for example, in the developments in southern Africa, beginning with the independence of Namibia and the dramatic changes in South Africa itself. Those could not have happened had it not been for the greater co-operation of the Soviet authorities.
More recently, and perhaps most dramatically, we have seen the effects of the changes externally in the Soviet Union co-operation over the Gulf war. We recognise that even five years ago that could not have happened because of the alliance between the Soviet Union and Iraq, with Iraq a major purchaser of Soviet military hardware, with the Soviet Union regarding Iraq as its major foothold in the middle east and with the generals being largely in control. The new spirit, personified by President Gorbachev and Mr. Shevardnadze, was responsible in large part for the relative ease of international co-operation in the Gulf crisis.
Perhaps it is an answer to my hon. Friend's Marxist analysis that we are talking about changes which probably occurred as a result of the remarkable imprint on history of one man. That surely conflicts with the classic Marxist analysis that one has an economic substructure on which all else within the pyramid is built, as if we are the playthings of movements in the substructure. How can one fit into that analysis the remarkable changes in the Soviet Union as a result of the personal efforts of one man—President Gorbachev? It may be that he is played out as a reformer; I do not know, but no one can deny the vast


changes, internally and externally, which have come about because of his activities. I do not see how those changes could be accommodated within the pure Marxist analysis.

Mr. Terry Fields: Some valid points need to be made. Is my hon. Friend saying that Gorbachev is not a Marxist and that it is not a Marxist economy? My hon. Friend is underlining what I said. There has never been a proper Marxist economy in the Soviet Union because of Stalinism. What we see today is neither socialism nor anything else. Gorbachev is moving because he feels the hot breath of the workers on the back of his neck. We cannot call it democracy if reforms are implemented from the top. The reforms will come from the masses, and not from Gorbachev or Yeltsin.

Mr. Anderson: The point I am making is simply that in my judgment those changes could not have come about had it not been for the personal commitment of President Gorbachev. It is an example of the influence of an individual on history, not of the effect of the interplay of some anonymous swirl of forces in the economic substructure. We can continue that theoretical argument elsewhere, at a different time.
We are seeing the emergence of a new world order. The Gulf crisis showed that there is probably now only one super-power, at least politically and militarily—the United States, joined on the economic front by Japan and Germany.
We are also witnessing a period of rapid change within the Soviet Union and one is bound to ask how permanent it is. Is the present period of indecision merely a pause or smoking break, is it irreversible, and is there a real danger of a stepping back, as the darker forces of the KGB and the Russian army take over whatever reforming impulses President Gorbachev may yet have?
Who knows what shape the USSR will eventually assume? It is generally acknowledged that, as a consequence of the Soviet Union's policies of the past five years, the genie of reform is out of the bottle and there is no way that a more repressive regime could squeeze it back for any length of time. That is the context of change in the Soviet Union, within which we must formulate our bilateral policy.
My hon. Friend spoke of a bilateral relationship between England—I would prefer to say Britain—and the Soviet Union, but in no wise did he refer to the European Community. We must surely accept that is now the forum in which much of our policy is formulated.
The Community responded speedily to the killings by forces loyal to the Kremlin in Vilnius on 13 January and in Riga on 20 January, by suspending the aid package of food and technical assistance for the Soviet Union that it had prepared. If Britain alone had taken that action, it would have had very little effect; because it was taken with the full weight of the Community behind it, the effect was substantial.
One looks back over 10 years to the beginnings of the new cold war and of the concept of the evil empire and forward to the next 10 years of a highly uncertain and possibly unstable Soviet Union. The balance within the USSR may change. Some argue that, over the next decade, its present nature will alter dramatically, and that there will only be left the core of the Russian federation—Byelorussia, the Ukraine, and Khazakstan—with not only

the other existing republics, including the Baltics, but the Asian republics forming a looser confederation that may have no relationship with the core.
What will be the relationship of that core Soviet Union with the new Europe? We cannot attempt to answer that question tonight, but, in terms of our bilateral relationships, it is in our interests to respond sensibly to the major internal changes that are now under way in the Soviet Union. It is not in our interests to promote instability. The picture of a series of loose cannons jolting and knocking around the deck will make anyone who is seriously concerned about the future of our continent shudder.
As a country, and as part of the European Community, we have every interest in seeking ever closer co-operation with the Soviet Union, but that must be a conditional co-operation—conditional on the acceptance of basic human rights within the Soviet Union. That was our theme two weeks ago—the European Community and its relationship with eastern Europe and the USSR. The consensus in the House was that we supported Gorbachev the reformer, but not Gorbachev the man no matter what he may do. Therefore, a strong human rights theme underpins the development of our policies towards the Soviet Union.
Clearly, a strong effort needs to be made in this country to understand the Soviet Union more. I recall—I think that it was in the 1960s—that the policy formulators created the Hayter fund in our universities. Alas, within our educational structure, the commitment to the Hayter fund seems to have waned substantially. Whether we should seek to breathe new life into the academic study of the Soviet Union and other exchanges is a matter for our policy makers to consider. Clearly there has been a decline in that relationship.
Wherever possible we should seek to encourage co-operation and dialogue. In the internal debate within the Soviet Union, especially in relation to the Baltics, we must try to understand, and to be respected by both sides. So far as we are able, we must try to play a constructive role, recognising, for example, the complexity of the problems relating to the Baltics and the substantial Soviet interests which remain in those republics because of the military and economic integration which has taken place, for good or ill, in the past 50 years.
There are major things that we and our European partners can do, which the United States, because of its history and geography, would never be able to do, as we seek constructively to define the common European home, to which President Gorbachev alluded. Clearly, that common European home was not possible when, as one hon. Member said, there was a wall through the front room—through Berlin. Now that the Berlin wall has gone, there are possibilities for much greater co-operation.
Within that common European home which will evolve—and evolve constructively—as we try to understand the Soviet Union, its problems and the internal changes, we believe that we can live together, work together and trade together in a constructive and positive way.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) is to be congratulated on raising this subject tonight for one


reason in particular. At one moment in the speech by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) from the Opposition Front Bench, it seemed possible that we would witness a debate between him and his hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen on the nature and meaning of socialism. That would have been most illuminating to the House—especially to all my hon. Friends, who have never understood what socialism was about anyway. We were not afforded that opportunity, but we heard interesting contributions from both hon. Members.
It is only fair to say to the hon. Member for Broadgreen that his speech was not about Anglo-Soviet relations but was a litany of despair that the Soviet people should have gone so astray. He admitted, honestly and indeed proudly, that he was a Marxist analysis. Of course we are all proud of the fact that, in this country and this House, everyone is entitled to his opinions and has an opportunity to express them; I cannot help noting, however, that allowing the free expression of dissenting opinion has not been the invariable practice of the Governments who have espoused the Marxist views advanced by the hon. Gentleman tonight.
In my reply, I do not intend to espouse what is without doubt a capitalist analysis of the position; I shall content myself with a few observations about our relations with the Soviet Union in recent years, and about recent developments there.
The reforms of the past six years have produced changes of lasting significance. They are far from complete, and they are not all irreversible, but it would certainly not be possible to recreate the monolothic communist state of old principally because, for the Soviet people, the truth is now out. Despite recent attempts to curb Soviet television and impose renewed restrictions on the press, information is no longer shackled and controlled as it has been in the past.
The Soviet people have become aware of the problems and failings of the system that has ruled them for 70 years. They have been able to see the way in which life is lived on the outside, in a way that can never be gainsaid. The Communist party of the Soviet Union—which lay at the heart of the old system—still has a large nominal membership, and retains considerable influence on the central Soviet authorities, but it is deeply discredited and has lost its monopoly on power, and—as the Soviet people have grasped the idea of elections with more than one candidate—governing bodies within republics and cities have in many cases fallen out of communist control.
The Soviet people have now acquired the idea of a law-based society, and the foundations of that are beginning to be built, although many elements of it remain to be put in place. They have also acquired the idea of freedom of travel: unprecedented numbers have, for the first time, been to the west in the past two or three years. All those developments are perhaps characterised by the observation of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that the genie is out of the bottle.

Mr. Terry Fields: I concede that the question of travel is often overlooked. I can travel freely to certain parts of the Soviet Union; workers who are brought into Leningrad to work on specific projects, however, cannot move outside the city. Now that their work has finished

—building a dam to ensure that the river does not overflow its banks—they cannot go home to their wives and families. So much for free travel in the Soviet Union.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman knows more than I do about some of the difficulties that remain, but surely he agrees that the position has been transformed from that of a few years ago, and that the prospect of travel has opened up new horizons and aspirations for the Soviet people.
Both the hon. Member for Broadgreen and the hon. Member for Swansea, East touched on my second point. Although the political advances of the past six years have been taking place, regrettably, progress in the development of the Soviet economy has not been as successful as everyone would have wished. Partial reform has, perhaps inevitably, led the economy into a deepening crisis, with industrial output falling, inflation rising and deficits increasing in food and other consumer goods. Some market mechanisms have been introduced—for example, in the co-operative sector—but a full-scale transition towards market economics has yet to be initiated, and the country is largely being run through what remains of the old centrally planned economy. It is in this area that we firmly and strikingly disagree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Broadgreen. It is not the introduction of capitalism that has caused the crisis in the Soviet economy but the failure to apply capitalism.

Mr. Terry Fields: The Minister misrepresents me.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If I misrepresented the hon. Member, I did so unwittingly, and I apologise.
In addition to the political changes and the lack of economic progress, there has been another major broad development—the crisis in the relationship between the central and republican authorities. One of the many welcome aspects of President Gorbachev's reforms was to decentralise power and to make possible the election of new and more genuinely representative republican and regional Governments, but this process has in turn raised questions of a fundamental nature about the powers to be assigned to republican bodies, and the degree of sovereignty to be enjoyed by the 15 union republics. The negotiations on the draft union treaty, and the referendum which is to be held on Sunday 17 March, have been a focal point for these discussions.
What attitude should we in Britain, the British Government, take to the Soviet Union in this turbulent transitional phase of its history? We do not know, and outsiders cannot determine, what will happen in the Soviet Union in the months and years ahead. But we should spell out clearly where we stand, and the Government propose to do so in several ways. I will touch on a few of them.
First, we stand for keeping open the many channels of communication that have developed in the past few years. Now is not the time to encourage a Soviet return to isolation. If we disagree with the policies which the Soviet Government are pursuing, we should discuss our disagreements frankly. We have many important interests in common with the Soviet Government. We share a vital concern in seeing, for example, a more secure and stable middle east in the wake of the Gulf conflict. We are both vitally engaged in building a safer and more prosperous Europe—for example, through the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. This new Europe must be built on trust and confidence.
Second, as a broad general principle, we do not seek to prescribe the future of the Soviet Union. All the peoples of the Soviet Union should enjoy the right to self-determination, but it is not for us to lay down how they should exercise that right. A process of evolution and of very active political debate is under way. Our policies will evolve in parallel with that process, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East said. We will seek to maintain effective working relationships with all those in authority throughout the Soviet Union, and to conduct appropriate business with them. We do not wish to see the Soviet Union descend into chaos or strife. We are well aware that it will be no easy task for the Soviet people to resolve their present difficulties.
Hon. Members have on many occasions rightly expressed concern about the predicament of the three Baltic republics. Democratic and peaceful negotiation is precisely what is needed there. The United Kingdom, like most western states, has never given legal recognition to the USSR's annexation of the Baltic states. They have a special history and a special status. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained to President Gorbachev the dismay that the violent events in Vilnius and Riga in January had evoked in the west. While we are glad that the elected authorities in the Baltic states remain in office, little progress has yet been made towards a substantive solution. Negotiations will take time; they will require patience and tolerance.
I have touched upon the problems of the Soviet economy. A third area of concern is the question of economic reform, and our economic and commercial relationship with the Soviet Union. Here, too, we and our western partners have made very clear where we stand. It is apparent that the highly centralised, rigid and monopolistic command-administrative system has failed the Soviet people. That is widely acknowledged, even

within the Soviet Union. We believe that the overhaul and modernisation of the Soviet economy and more efficient exploitation of that country's huge natural resources and agricultural potential will be of common benefit.
With our partners in the European Community and the Group of Seven, we commissioned two major studies of the Soviet economy last year. They recommended a process of structural change, of the creation of markets and of introducing incentives for enterprises. As both reports made clear, that is a process in which western advice and training and western commercial investment could play an important part—as they are already doing in eastern Europe. The EC technical assistance programme and our own bilateral know-how fund have both demonstrated the west's willingness to offer tangible support for reform. If the Soviet Union moved decisively towards a market economy, I believe that those would prove to be only a first step.
British-Soviet relations are not simply the preserve of Governments. There is a considerable and growing network of connections between people in all walks of life—the hon. Member for Broadgreen is one—in this country and the Soviet Union, a network should evolve largely irrespective of politics. The Soviet people have inherited a sad legacy, and are going through considerable hardship as they work through the daunting task of reshaping their country. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in a speech last month, we want to knit them into Europe as that becomes possible—the common European home referred to by the hon. Member for Swansea, East—and to continue bringing down the barriers of the past. There will be difficulties along the way, as there have been this year, but we are sure that it is the right objective, and one which hon. Members will support.

National Lottery

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise once again the need for a national lottery in Great Britain.
Lotteries have existed for centuries. They can be traced from the ancient Romans to the feudal kings and renaissance merchants, to Governments in Europe and, eventually, throughout the world. The Romans participated in them as a form of entertainment, and for the most part lotteries continued to be used in that way well into the 16th century. By the early 1700s, European Governments began to recognise the revenue potential of lotteries and started to license their operation. Revenues were used to finance the construction of roads, bridges, schools and churches, and to provide assistance for needy individuals.
English colonists to America relied on lotteries for a variety of purposes, and lotteries flourished in colonial America with the support of most churches, which were among the primary beneficiaries. Private companies conducted lotteries to dispose of surplus goods, and groups ran them in support of schools, churches and public works. That laissez-faire attitude towards lotteries led to abuses and fraud. As criticism grew, colonial assemblies began to regulate lotteries, so that, by the mid-1700s, Government-sponsored lotteries had all but replaced private ones. The Government issued licences, specified the drawing dates and approved the directors who operated the games. In time, that Government regulation helped to dispel public criticism.
Lotteries were thriving in Europe. They were seized upon as sources of new revenue by the Governments of the Netherlands, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Austria and many other countries. The advent of Government regulation did not mean that lotteries became less common; far from it. The public preferred lotteries to higher taxes, thus confirming Thomas Jefferson's view that lotteries are the perfect tax, paid only by the willing. Lotteries were used to raise funds for public activities and to provide relief for the needy.
By the mid-1800s, even Government-controlled lotteries were falling prey to abuse and fraud. Licensing procedures were simply inadequate to ensure that they were conducted honestly and competently. Profits were diverted to middlemen and to pay bribes to licensing authorities and officials. By 1900, there were virtually no official lotteries in the English-speaking world.
The advent of computer technology and enormously improved communications began to make safe, honest lotteries once more a practical proposition in the 1900s. In the early 1990s an increasing number of companies are switching their management systems to the most modern and safest form of lottery ticket and prize pool management which uses direct and instantaneous recording of. each bet made through a sales agent's terminal that is connected by telephone line directly to the central computer. Such on-line systems also increase lottery sales, because they can be shut down literally minutes before the draw for a conventional lottery.
Lotteries are successful despite the fact that they are run to raise revenues. They succeed because people enjoy playing them. For centuries, people have been eager to pay small amounts for the chance to win a large cash or goods prize. So long as they have confidence in the integrity of

the games, and particularly if they have sympathy with the objectives to which the proceeds are to be devoted, people play lotteries. They abandon them when they can see that the games are tainted by fraud or mismanagement. People like to take a chance, but it must be an honest chance—and today it is, and can be, such a chance.
Today there are lotteries in 116 countries. They have been used to finance the building of the Sydney opera house and to fund the Olympic games in Moscow and in Mexico. They were also used to build the great American universities of Yale and Harvard. In the past, Britain has also benefited from a national lottery. The British museum was built from the proceeds of such a lottery. However, Britain and Albania are now the only countries in Europe that do not have a national lottery.
I realise that some people are concerned about our having a lottery, and I want to deal with those concerns before presenting positive reasons both for establishing a national lottery and for establishing one quickly.
The 1987 Royal Commission on Gambling listed objections to a national lottery which are still relevant today. The royal commission considered those objections in some detail, but concluded that none of the arguments carried sufficient weight to alter its recommendation in favour of a national lottery.
The royal commission summarised the main objections to the lottery as follows: that it would damage football pools and small lotteries; that the state should not promote gambling and that it would add to the social evils of gambling; and that taxation should be used to raise funds, not the lottery.
The Pools Promoters Association stated in 1975, following the publication of the interdepartmental working party on lotteries report, that large lotteries and the pools industry were compatible. Further, in its evidence to the Royal Commission on Gambling in 1978, the association accepted the existence of a market for a new and popular form of lottery. That evidence was probably influenced by the fact that, at the time, the association seemed the best organisation to manage and distribute a national lottery. It pointed out to the royal commission that its assets in skill, experience in security, equipment and facilities could not be matched for a scheme that used door-to-door agents.
However, that was the position in 1978. Technology has moved on apace. Even with a lotto scheme, it is inconceivable to think of the modern lottery being run by agents collecting from door to door. Modern technology means that participants select their numbers, which are recorded by a computer terminal in each agency. That is much more efficient, and the security is better than any other method.
A survey conducted by Social and Community Planning on behalf of the 1978 royal commission also showed that a national lottery would not dramatically change people's participation in the pools. I believe that that is still the case today. Would small lotteries suffer? Experience shows that small lotteries do not suffer from the establishment of national lotteries. Research and surveys conducted in Britain and the United States show that small lotteries are not adversely affected. More recently, the introduction of the Irish lottery has been accompanied by increased sales of charity lottery tickets, possibly as a result of the publicity surrounding the national lottery and the awareness that it creates.
Should the state provoke gambling? There is a great difference between the state being involved in gambling in order to administer control and the state actively promoting it. It is necessary for the Government to be involved to reduce the possibility of illegal gaming. Wherever illegal gambling is allowed to flourish, it is accompanied by other crimes. It is important for the state to encourage controlled conditions to ensure fair play and moderation. Creating controls is not promoting gambling.
The clamour for a national lottery comes from many quarters. The Government have no need to promote the idea. However, if they fell that the arguments in favour were overwhelming, it would be right to introduce legislation. Would there be harmful social effects? It is worth looking at countries which have lotteries to see whether any harmful social effects occur as a result of them. The strong Church traditions throughout Europe have not blocked lotteries in any country, because Churches can see that lotteries do not breed gambling habits.
In France, the Loto National started in 1976. The Rothschild royal commission noted:
We have neither heard nor seen anything to suggest that its remarkable success has been accompanied by any socially harmful effects.
Studies conducted in the past nine years in the United States of America and Canada, where lotteries are operated, show that low-income groups participate in disproportionately low numbers. Their participation rate is lower than their proportion of the population. The poor are less likely to buy lottery tickets than middle-income individuals. Lotteries are, by and large, a source of entertainment for middle-income people.
Whatever the objections to a lottery being established in Britain in the past, the position has changed and will change even more dramatically in 1992. It has changed because lottery tickets are already coming into Britain from Canada, West Germany and other countries. Some 3 million tickets were prevented from coming in last year, but many got through. I have received many examples from the public. I should be happy to let the Minister have a couple, if he so wished. One that I have here from Austria offers a prize of £31 million. I can tell the Minister that some of us in marginal seats are considering such tickets with increasing interest. All this is despite the fact that the conduct of foreign lotteries in Great Britain is prohibited under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976.
The European Commission will shortly consider whether the gambling industry is wrongly interpreting the structure of the 1992 legislation. A report due soon from Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte will highlight the difference between the betting legislation of the 12 member states to allow the Commission to decide whether they represent a threat to the rest of the single market. The Commission may conclude—many experts believe that it will—that the ban on lottery tickets entering the United Kingdom constitutes a barrier to the free circulation of goods and services between the Twelve and is therefore an infringement of EC law.
Therefore, it seems inevitable that European lottery tickets will be available in the United Kingdom on a large scale. As opinion polls show that people will buy them, we will then be funding improved facilities in France and Germany, for example, despite the fact that France already has 20 times more covered tennis courts than we have, and Germany has 20 times more covered swimming

pools than we have, as well as 120 opera houses to our six. It is vital that a British-based lottery is introduced urgently to retain benefits for our country. It would not be complicated to set up; legislation would not be complex. It could play an exciting role in financing so much that has to be done for the arts, for sport and for the environment.

Mr. John Lee: I want to put on record the fact that the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions—of which I have the honour to be chairman—whose members comprise the leading private sector visitor attractions, including many of our leading national cathedrals and many of our leading national galleries and museums, is very supportive of the concept of a national lottery. The trigger for membership of ALVA is 1 million or more visitors a year, so we are talking about the largest visitor attractions. ALVA is supportive of the concept, especially if the majority of the surplus is used towards sustaining and improving the fabric of our historic properties which do so much to attract overseas visitors to this country and which also attract domestic visitors.

Mr. Hargreaves: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his support. He is one of the six sponsors of the early-day motion.
In 1978, the Royal Commission on Gambling saw a single national lottery in support of the arts as a
rare opportunity to improve the quality of British life.
The case for such a lottery is far stronger today when the quality of life is a major public issue.
A simple change in existing legislation to allow a single nationwide lottery, authorised by the Government, would require the passing of a Bill through Parliament. The establishment of a lottery would not involve the Government in running the lottery directly, nor would it create new running costs for central or local government. The responsibility for and general oversight of the lottery would be the duty of a national lottery board. The board could have some 10 members, selected for their independence of spirit and imagination, coupled with personal distinction and public standing. No new Government bureaucracies would be needed, and the state would not be directly involved in marketing or promotion.
The function of the national lottery board would be to invite applications for the operation of the national lottery board for good causes, to consider applications for the franchise and to determine its conditions, to approve the lottery system and to make arrangements for distributing the proceeds of the lottery, to arrange for an independent audit of the lottery and to make an annual report to Parliament.
The distribution of funds would be channelled into existing and, future projects as capital funding and endowment, ensuring that no running costs needed to be met from public sources. The national lottery, while independent, would remain under careful Government scrutiny, but free of political influence.
It is important that there should be a single national lottery. A multiplicity of large lotteries would create serious problems of control and would become a public nuisance. It is clear that, in this modern age, a large, successful and, above all, secure lottery, available to the public, requires expertise and technical facilities that could be provided with maximum efficiency and economy only on a national scale, even more tautly organised than the pools. If participation paralleled the Spanish enthusiasm,


prizes could amount to six weekly prizes of £1 million each. That would guarantee regular participation and the maximum support for the good causes.
Protection against fraud and guarantees that the fund reached the good cause would also be within the functions of the national lottery board. Auditing and an annual report to Parliament would further ensure security. Those considerations, and not protection from competition or from free market enterprise, would make the Government charter necessary.
General taxation cannot bear the cost of all desirable objects, as distinct from those that are essential to the nation, such as health and education. Funds from a lottery, which would complement and not replace existing Government funding or private sponsorship for sport, for the arts and for the environment, could give a much-needed boost to areas that are so critical to the quality of British life. That is not to say that other good causes would be ignored. For example, national disasters and relief efforts have good claims to be lottery beneficiaries.
Sport greatly adds to the quality of life in the community. It improves health and personal development. Sport generates direct and indirect economic benefits, spin-offs in sports medicine and science and a lifting of national moral and prestige. Olympic and Commonwealth games produce national heroes, but with decreasing sports facilities and playing fields, tomorrow's champions may not be given a chance. It is worth noting that the Spanish lottery has already raised £10 million for the 1992 Barcelona games.
A proliferation of the arts throughout all regions of the nation and their integration into daily life is one of the keys of civilisation. Britain cannot yet rival some of its European counterparts in terms of state funding for the arts and the protection of national treasures.
In a per capita comparison with Munich, London alone would have 21 orchestras and 10 opera houses. Currently, Britain has only six opera houses, compared with 102 active in Germany. The recent closure of Kent opera illustrates the crisis. Despite well attended theatres and galleries, the arts are prevented from filling the full potential of their essential role in society simply by lack of growth, development and funds.
Protection and enhancement of many aspects of the environment and their associated research contribute to the quality of everyone's life. In its global picture, environment means everything that surrounds and civilises our lives—the arts, sport, landscape, plants and nature itself.
The many projects to be envisaged include the reclamation of derelict and neglected land, the introduction of green areas in cities, and the preservation of cathedrals, all requiring vast funds which could not be expected to come from current state funds.
Concern for the environment is now a fundamental issue and a worthy beneficiary of lottery funds. The funding of sport, art and the environment reflect the most widely popular use of lottery revenue.
Some 92 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have signed early-day motion 566 in favour of a lottery.
Many others who cannot or do not sign early-day motions have written to express their support. I believe that there is similar support throughout the country.
Time is not on our side, but if we act quickly we could set up a national lottery which would raise £1 billion each year for arts, sport and the environment before our European partners flood the market.
I am not trying to promote, encourage or stimulate gambling. What I am trying to do in urging the setting up of a national lottery is to ensure that the proceeds of gambling benefit Hyndburn, Birmingham and Penzance, not Hamburg, Brussels and Paris.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The hon. Gentleman mentioned on a couple of occasions during his excellent speech the threat posed by other EC countries selling tickets here after 1992. What evidence does he have to substantiate that worry? Surely, at the end of the day, the court will have to decide. I must confess that I cannot be as sure as he appears to be of the outcome.

Mr. Hargreaves: There is increasing evidence that the view that the Home Office seems to take that we can prevent tickets coming in will not prevail in the end. The feeling now seems to be that, if the case goes to the European Court, we will lose, and by then it will be too late.

Mr. John Bowis: Is it not the case that such tickets are already coming in? The Irish sweep tickets are freely available here, and it will not be long before the others follow.

Mr. Hargreaves: That is happening illegally. The same situation arose in Denmark. It now has a lottery of its own, but the West German tickets already had a hold there. I am afraid that that is what will happen to us. We will miss the chance, we will buy other people's tickets, and if we then lose the case in the European Court people will have got used to buying tickets from a foreign lottery and continue to buy them rather than ours.
I should like to place on record my thanks to the international conductor, Dennis Vaughan, who has worked and campaigned so hard for a national lottery. For his sake, and for the sake of millions of citizens in this country, I hope that the Minister will assure the House that, despite the depressing recitation of the out-dated arguments against a British national lottery that were put last week by one of his officials to a meeting of the Lotteries Council, the Home Office will give this matter urgent consideration. Next year will be too late.

Mr. David Amess: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on his splendid speech. He is well known in the House for his tenacity in pursuing issues in which he strongly believes, of which this is certainly one.
Listening to my hon. Friend, I was taken with the idea of suggesting that the headquarters of the national lottery should be in my constituency of Basildon. He might object to that, on the grounds that it would be better situated in Hyndburn.
A national lottery is a splendid idea. Premium bonds have lost their attraction. I feel somewhat bitter, because I purchased some when the noble Lord Stockton introduced them but have not won anything. I can see the


attraction to the general public of a national lottery. Much would be gained from a draw on television. I can imagine Joan Collins pulling out the winning ticket and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, sitting in front of the television at home, suddenly learning that they had won £1 million or £500,000.
The case advanced for a national lottery is that sport, the arts and the environment cannot be wholly funded from general taxation and that they deserve more money because they contribute significantly to the quality of our national life. The most important question is how much a British national lottery would contribute to those aims. The research produced by my hon. Friend and his colleagues shows that projected sales, taking the average per capita spend on lotteries of all EC countries, would be £3·1 billion. If 45 per cent. of the proceeds were returned in prize money and a further 20 per cent. allocated to expenses, 35 per cent. would be left to distribute to various causes. That gives a lottery income of £1·08 billion a year, which is a huge amount.
A comparison with lotteries in the United States shows about the same income—£1·1 billion a year. Even a fledgling national lottery in Northern Ireland has an income of £572 million a year. Although that is the lowest projection, it is an incredibly large amount of money for sport, the arts and the environment.
Can you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, imagine £1 billion being spent on those three areas? I could spend that money extremely well on them in Basildon. There could be a fully funded symphony orchestra in each regional centre, famous works of arts could be retained in this country, a theatre company the size of the Royal Shakespeare Company could be fully maintained and there could be encouragement and support for young talent across Great Britain——

Mr. Bowls: In Basildon.

Mr. Amess: As my hon. Friend says, particularly in my constituency of Basildon.
For sport, there could be a new national stadium, built to the highest Olympic standards, a fully funded research centre for sports medicine and scholarships for aspiring young athletes.
Finally, the conservation of land and waterways and the preservation of wildlife could be accomplished with one year's revenue from a British national lottery. We are a nation of gamblers. Occasionally, we even gamble on the return of a socialist Government—always, as we know, with disastrous consequences. My hon. Friend's sensible proposal would realise, at the very least, over £1 billion, which would be well spent in those three areas.
When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer presents his Budget next Tuesday, I hope that he will tell the House that he supports the introduction of a national lottery. I hope, too, that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn will be given full credit for its introduction.

Mr. Stuart Randall: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) on doing so well in the lottery for a place to speak on the subject of lotteries. I congratulate him on his choice of subject, because there is a momentum for their introduction. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)

referred to a "lollipop" Budget. We remember that last year the hon. Member for Hyndburn promoted an excellent private Member's Bill. He introduced it in April, but with little success, I am afraid.
This is not a new proposal. The hon. Gentlemen referred to the history of lotteries and reminded us that the first state lottery was held in 1566, and the proceeds were used to rebuild our ports. There was also a certain amount of military spending at that time. We continued to have lotteries for about 100 years. In 1698, Parliament passed an Act for Suppressing of Lotteries that banned all lotteries except state lotteries. A lot of fiddling was going on. Lotteries had got out of hand and there were no controls over them.
State lotteries then began to go wrong, so the Lotteries Act was passed in 1832, which banned them. The Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 perpetuated the ban on state lotteries. It permitted fund raising by local authorities and registered charitable organisations. A limit was placed on the amount that could be raised and the amount of prize money.
For many years, irrespective of whether there has been a Labour or a Conservative Administration, the policy has been not to stimulate demand unduly. We said that we would satisfy but not stimulate demand. A national lottery would lead to television publicity and other advertising. The hon. Member for Hyndburn would probably admit that there would be a need to stimulate demand. That would mean, however, a change of principle in our legislation.
It strikes me that something funny is going on in the Conservative party, and I cannot make out what it is—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) agrees with me.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: No, I do not.

Mr. Randall: In the Financial Times of 24 February, the Prime Minister is reported as having asked the Treasury to investigate the possibility of introducing a national lottery. On 12 February, the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) asked the Prime Minister for the latest on the lottery. Extraordinarily enough, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
My hon. Friend raises an intriguing question."—[Official Report, 12 February 1991; Vol. 185, c. 730.]
That was a funny sort of answer. It was almost as if he were trying to hide something.
On 13 March, another article suggested that the Chancellor would follow European practice on lotteries. Then The Guardian reported that the Chancellor might need a lollipop to give away because he was in such desperate straits over the Budget—it would be something to enliven what promises otherwise to be the deadest Budget of all time.

Mr. Lee: Could it be that the Government were conducting another fundamental review?

Mr. Randall: It could indeed. It is difficult to understand what the Government are up to. There has been a lot of flurry recently, and yet more indecision on the part of the Prime Minister. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is ruling nothing in and nothing out. We simply do not know what the man is about.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Hyndburn seems to have got his timing impeccably right, for which I give him credit. In his excellent speech, he covered the subject well—but he presented his lollipop just a week before the


lollipop Budget. One week from now, we shall know whether the hon. Gentleman's ideas will be killed stone dead or given the kiss of life by means of new legislation. We shall have to wait and see.
What are the Government's motives? I am not as sanguine as the hon. Member for Hyndburn about the effects of 1992. The effects of the single market on lotteries have been mooted. The hon. Gentleman was right to point out that Britain is the only country in the Community not to have a lottery. Could the Germans, for instance, arrive here after 1992 and demand to be allowed to sell lottery tickets? The answer is that we do not know.
This is partly because the Commission has said in a White Paper that there will be no harmonisation of gambling legislation. That means that all the controls on gambling will reside with the Government. However, the hon. Member for Hyndburn has said that, although the Commission has taken a new line, after 1992 it will be tested in the courts and the case will be decided in favour of the claimants. Then, the Germans, who already have a lottery system, will be able to come over here and translate the tickets from German to English and because the computer system will already be in operation, we shall lose an awful lot of money.
I am not sure whether that is a fanciful scenario, but we need to know whether there is such a threat. The hon. Gentleman may be overstating the situation, but we need to know why the Prime Minister is making all these noises and creating all these uncertainties. Is it because he believes that 1992 will result in Germany or some other country coming in with its own system, or is it because there is useful money to be had? Is there a chance that we shall lose £1 billion a year? If that were to happen, British gamblers could be financing big projects in Germany.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn mentioned opera houses. As I was coming into the House, I was listening, on Radio 3, to a live transmission of an opera in Cardiff, from the New theatre. That theatre has been around for a long time, so it seems a tragedy that Wales, the land of song, still does not have its own opera house. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) was talking about Joan Collins making the draw, but if I am being fanciful, I should like Wales to have an opera house.
It would be ironic if this opportunity were to be lost, and the Germans, with their strong economy, were able to exploit the British market. Is that a threat or a risk? I am looking forward to the Minister's reply, because no doubt he is bubbling over with lots of ideas.
How would all this be organised? I am baffled, and I should like the Minister's advice. What sort of lottery shall we have? With all that well-prepared speech, the hon. Member for Hyndburn did not say much on that point. Will there be a state-run scheme or a private enterprise solution, with several competing lotteries? I refer the House to a debate in the other place, in which Lord Ferris said:
A state lottery is a lottery run by government. That would involve the state in the promotion of gambling, and if that were the noble Lord's proposal—which as he explained, it is not—I am bound to tell him that it would not meet with the Government's approval, as it would run counter to our policies on deregulation and privatisation."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 February 1990; Vol. 516, c. 799.]

That is a Home Office Minister saying that we cannot have a state-run lottery. It is extraordinary that such a scheme is being ruled out now.
The hon. Member for Hyndburn talked about £1 billion, but I think that the lottery would fall far short of that sum. Would the Secretary of State run the lottery, or would we have a lottery board? If there were a private free-for-all, I presume that it would be run by a private company or companies. What would be the guidelines for allocating funds? How would the Secretary of State determine his priorities? The hon. Member for Hyndburn referred to sport, the environment and the arts, but who would determine the priorities? It is clear that there are many complex questions to be answered.
If we were to have a lottery of the sort that has been proposed, I believe that there would be an overwhelming case for a state-run system. International experience suggests that the scheme would not be viable if there were a proliferation of lotteries. Even the local authority schemes—they are quite large—are beginning to die off. There is a problem of scale.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: The hon. Gentleman's attention must have wandered during the relevant part of my speech. I explained that I was talking about one lottery. I am sure that that will be confirmed by Hansard. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will outline the Labour party's attitude to lotteries and say what a Labour Government would do.

Mr. Randall: I recall that the hon. Gentleman explained that he was talking about a state-run system. As I have said, that runs contrary to what Lord Ferrers said in another place. How does the hon. Gentleman meet that dilemma? It would seem that a state-run lottery has already been ruled out.

Mr. Hargreaves: A single lottery is not necessarily run by the state. It can be run, as in Ireland, by an organisation on behalf of the Government. It is a nationwide lottery, not a state lottery.

Mr. Randall: What does "run by the Government" mean? The hon. Gentleman is saying that, if the lottery were to be run by the Government, he would rule that out. It seems that he is arguing that there could be an agency, a lottery council or a board or body that would be responsible for running the scheme. Surely that is splitting hairs. The creation of an agency to run the lottery would be the sensible approach. The Tote is an example.
The notion of proliferation is not sensible, because the lottery that the hon. Member for Hyndburn has in mind would have to be big and to offer big prizes, or the public would not be drawn to it. That rules out a free-enterprise solution, with competition and smaller lotteries.
It would be important that the benefits of a lottery went to the people and not to private companies as a result of them taking a cut. A national lottery would almost certainly become a monopoly, and I do not like private monopolies: a state monopoly is more acceptable. We have created private monopolies through the privatisation programme, and I consider them to be unacceptable.
A national lottery must be free of vice and corruption. It is necessary to ensure that all the tickets are drawn. If there were proliferation, the necessary controls would be almost impossible to implement. To be fair, the hon. Gentleman touched on the matter, but the impact on other forms of gambling would need to be examined—for


instance, football pools. They are forbidden by law to advertise, yet the state lottery would almost certainly have to advertise. There would then be a question of unfair competition to be dealt with.
We would need to assess the implications for the Exchequer. The turnover from all forms of gambling is about £10 billion, of which the Exchequer gets a slice. We are talking about large sums of money, so we would need to work out what the taxation policy would be.
There is also the moral argument which I touched on in an intervention. We would be moving away from a policy of allowing gambling activities only at a level which meets unstimulated demand. That is a very important principle. If we were to move away from that, it would raise many questions.
Being a decisive party, the Labour party believes that a national lottery is a parliamentary matter, rather like Sunday trading. The Labour party would not use a three-line Whip to force anything through. Hon. Members would be allowed to decide on a free vote. The hon. Member for Hyndburn has given us his views about the attitude of the public, and we have a clear view on the matter.
When the Government tell us what their policy is, when they will present legislation and what form the legislation will take, we can start a debate. Of course, it is for the Government to bring the measure forward. We are the Opposition, and our job is to oppose, but at the moment we have nothing to oppose. We do not oppose what the Prime Minister has said. He has come up with so much gobbledegook that we need clarification. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the matter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) not merely on his thoughtful and intriguing speech—I will not at this stage say "persuasive"—but on his success in securing the debate. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said, success in these matters is in itself something of a lottery. One is particularly fortunate to obtain an early slot.
The early-day motion, to which my hon. Friend referred, has shown the considerable interest in this subject in the House. It is a subject to which my hon. Friend has given a great deal of personal time and effort over many years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who made an enthusiastic supporting speech, conjured up visions of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn filling his constituency so full of opera houses, art galleries and stadiums, all opened by Joan Collins, that I did not think that there would be enough room left for him and his constituents. Nevertheless, I took it that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon represented a body of opinion that thinks that a national lottery could be of enormous benefit to a series of good causes.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West made a characteristically cheerful speech, accusing the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, of not making up their minds. I thought that that was rich, as he spent the rest of the time not being clear himself, and entirely baffling the House about Labour party policy. It was made clear only that Labour would allow a free vote

—except that, if there was to be a national lottery, Labour would make jolly certain that it was nationalised. That was typical, and par for the course.
In recent months, the media have given considerable attention to the prospect of a national lottery. I am not certain to what extent that reflects wider public concern, but I noted the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn about public opinion polls, and the informed intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee), who is chairman of the Association of Leading Visitor Attractions—and it is a topic on which I receive a steady flow of correspondence. If the recent publicity encouraged any betting on whether there would be a national lottery, that might already have generated some revenue for the Exchequer.
I will not recount the history of lotteries in this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn has already given some of it, or describe the existing statutory arrangements in any detail. However, any debate on the subject must take account of the present position. The last British state lottery was held in 1826, and small charitable lotteries have been allowed since 1846. The current relevant legislation is the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, which permits fund-raising lotteries for registered societies such as charities and sports clubs, or those of local authorities.
The maximum single prize permitted is £12,000, and the maximum turnover allowed is £180,000. Because of their scale, and because they benefit charitable or other good purposes, such lotteries are specifically exempted from gambling duty. About 50 per cent. of their turnover eventually finds its way back to the sponsoring charities. All other forms of gambling except on-course betting are taxed, and it is unlawful to promote or to conduct major lotteries based outside Great Britain.
That is the statutory framework within which any proposal for a national lottery must be seen. If we were to change the law—and I emphasise that it is a big if—to allow one or more large national lotteries, that would have to be done in a way consistent with the wider regime of gambling controls.
That throws up a number of difficult questions. to which there are not, as usual, any simple answers. I will highlight the main ones, but not necessarily in an order of priority. A constant theme throughout the debate was that a national lottery or lotteries could be justified only if the proceeds were used for charitable or similar purposes. The Government see no justification whatsoever for major lotteries that simply increase the already wide range of commercial gambling opportunities. I doubt whether any hon. Member disagrees with that assertion, which finds common ground outside the House as well and puts the debate in its proper context.
We have a more varied gambling industry than most other countries, and the Government have a duty to try to ensure that, to prevent fraud, gambling is properly regulated. But it is no part of Government policy to stop people gambling if they want to do so.
Equally, successive Governments, including the present Government, have taken the view that gambling should not be positively encouraged—a point made several times by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West. The application of that policy depends on the stakes involved. Lotteries already enjoy greater freedom to advertise because they are small and are run for charitable purposes. It may be that the heavy promotion required for a national


lottery could also be justified, because it would be in aid of charities. However, it would certainly involve additional and positive encouragement for people to gamble. Also, it would almost certainly mean that the charities received even less than the 50 per cent. of the stake money that local lotteries currently produce—perhaps only about one third.
Turning to practical matters, the first question to consider is whether there should be one national lottery only or whether there should be a free market for any charity that wished to run one. There would, of course, have to be adequate regulation in either event to prevent fraud; but there are arguments for and against both approaches.
Many of those who favour a national lottery—indeed, I think all who have spoken in the debate—seem to favour a single national lottery. There are, of course, attractions in that approach, which was the one recommended by the Rothschild royal commission in 1978. But if we go down that road, we are faced with a substantial problem of deciding who should receive the proceeds and how such decisions should be made.
Let us first consider who should benefit. Should it be the arts, sport, the environment, charities, health care, young people or any of the other many good causes that feel that they deserve a share? Many good causes have been mentioned as possible recipients of money from a national lottery, but let there be no doubt that, for every claim, there are many other competing and equally legitimate interests.
If there were a single lottery, effectively authorised by the Government, should those decisions be made by the Government or by some other body? Some proposals have been made for some sort of body of trustees who would shoulder that awesome responsibility, but would they be accountable to Parliament, and if so, would Ministers still get drawn into decisions about who benefited? Would they have fairly strict guidelines within which to operate, or would they have free rein to allocate money to whatever good causes they wanted?
Tonight I do not want to even try to begin to provide answers to these questions. They are difficult ones and cannot be brushed aside.

Ms. Harriet Harman: Why not?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Lady asks why not. There are some large questions that need to be answered, but they need to be answered by a substantial debate, of which this evening's debate is one example, before we come to a conclusion. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West is clearly waiting to be guided by an upsurge in public comment, before he will even begin to say how he and the Labour party might react to such a proposal, if the Government introduced one.
They are difficult questions and the Opposition Front Bench was unable to shed very much light on them. Indeed, only some of the questions had occurred to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West let alone the answers. We need to be clear who would benefit and how decisions would be made.
One way to overcome the difficulties might be to allow a free market, in which the public could decide which charity lotteries they wanted to support. In that way, no one would be excluded from the benefits of a major lottery.

Charities could group together either from choice or, in the light of competition, from necessity. It is likely that, in the long run, the public would identify the most deserving, or at least the most popular, causes and the number of lotteries would be smaller than at the outset. But even then, others could enter the market if they wanted to and felt that they could attract public interest and support.
This leads very conveniently into another of the complex issues that must be considered. What would be the effect of a national lottery on existing charitable lotteries, and charitable giving generally? We already have a free market for small charitable lotteries. I have recently received letters from those running small lotteries expressing concern that they will lose out to a national lottery. The total amount that they obtain from such lotteries may not be large, but they provide an essential supply of funds. It would be ironic if existing charitable organisations were to be the main ones to suffer from national lotteries intended to support good causes. There may be some ways of getting round these difficulties.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall give way in a moment.
There is evidence that my hon. Friend knows of elsewhere that small lotteries could flourish with a major lottery, but as yet not all small lotteries are convinced of that. Certainly their worries need to be considered in more detail than I accept my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn had time for this evening—in more detail than a few reassuring phrases about what might have happened in the United States. This is one of the questions that needs close attention, especially on the part of those who are promoting the idea of a national lottery to help charities generally. If my hon. Friend still wishes to intervene, I shall give way.

Mr. Hargreaves: When he replies to the letters that he has received, I hope that my hon. Friend will supply all the evidence available. There is no evidence anywhere in the world to suggest that state lotteries have any detrimental effect. In fact, the reverse seems to happen: more people buy tickets because of the advertising. That is certainly true in Ireland.

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate the confidence expressed by my hon. Friend, but he should communicate it to the many charities that have their doubts.
In addition to the proceeds of lotteries and many other fund-raising activities, charities and voluntary organisations receive support directly from the Government. In 1988–89, that amounted to about £2,000 million. The impact of a national lottery on the revenue yield from existing forms of gambling might put that level of support at risk. As I have said, we have a more varied gambling industry than most other countries. Many who advocate a national lottery suggest that it would generate new expenditure, not divert it from current gambling. That view is not shared by those likely to be affected. Football pools in particular, and also gaming machines, may be vulnerable. We cannot be sure what will happen at this stage, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West pointed out.
We must take into account the possible revenue implications. At present, the revenue yield from gambling is about £1,000 million. The football pools, which are likely to be particularly affected, are taxed at 40 per cent.,


and pay an additional 2·5 per cent. for safety improvements made at football grounds. Given the threat that a national lottery would pose for them, they are likely to press hard for equality of treatment; but would a national lottery be workable if it were taxed at anything like the same level? Some hon. Members may feel that it would not. Indeed, many who advocate a national lottery assume that there would be no tax at all. On that basis, it might well attract money from existing gambling, and reduce the revenue received by the Exchequer. Those are difficult judgments, and, thankfully, they are not for me to make; nevertheless, they must be addressed.
Closer to home is the likelihood of pressure from some sectors of the industry for a level playing field in other respects. Not surprisingly, they would, in any event, want to be able to compete vigorously with the national lottery. In particular, they would want to be able to advertise more freely, and they would want other controls to be lifted. That would result in a substantial stimulation of the demand for gambling. Although that too is not necessarily an insuperable problem, it would be irresponsible to proceed without considering the wider implications.
One issue has come up several times—and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, with furrowed brow, wondered what the rules were, and how it would all work out in 1992. I am talking about foreign lotteries. There is a fear—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn addressed himself—that, after 1992, major lotteries from other EC countries will be free to operate in this country.
As I said earlier, at present, major lotteries from abroad are unlawful. The European Commission's programme for the completion of the single market does not contain proposals for the harmonisation of gambling legislation. As far as we are aware, the Commission at present has no plans to present any such proposals.
We believe that a good defence of our present prohibition on major lotteries could, if necessary, be made if the prohibition were challenged under the treaty of Rome as it stands. Our policy is that controls on gambling are matters for national authorities, and we believe that many other EC Governments would be likely to take a similar view. Our understanding is that, in general, they do not permit lotteries from other countries to operate on their territory.
As always when we are considering the impact of European developments, it would be wrong to say that circumstances will never change.

Mr. Randall: rose——

Mr. Lloyd: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. That is another circumstance that never changes.

Mr. Randall: I should like some clarification, because I am baffled. The Minister said that after 1992 other EC countries would be able to come here and sell tickets, yet afterwards he said that the European Commission would advocate a policy whereby the laws of each member state would prevail. It is confusing. What is the position?

Mr. Lloyd: I did not think that I had said that. If I did, I was not making myself clear. I think I was saying that there was some concern on the part of some hon. Members that, after 1991, foreign lotteries might sell tickets lawfully here, and I said that I did not believe that that would be the case, because gambling laws would remain the responsibility of national Governments and not be part of the single market.
As I also said, however, in considering the impact of European developments, it would be wrong to say that circumstances will never change. But I do not believe that the single market argument carries nearly so much force as some of the proponents of a national lottery suggest, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn said. It is of course one of the many factors which should be taken into account along with the others that I have mentioned tonight, as well as some that I have not mentioned yet.
We have had, to use an appropriate word, a "useful" debate. I have certainly enjoyed it. I have been interested in what has been said. It is, however, a complex subject. I can assure the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn that the Government are looking, and will look very carefully, at the views which have been expressed, both here and outside.
We do not believe that it would be right—here I come to a point at issue between my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West—for the Government to run their own national lottery. If it was decided to proceed, it would be on the basis of one or more privately run lotteries subject to the necessary regulatory machinery. The Government are considering the many complex arguments for and against allowing such lotteries, and tonight's debate is a helpful contribution to that consideration. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn for raising the issue so that we could talk about it this evening.

Hospitals

Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I am pleased to be able to air this vital issue of national health service hospitals this evening, although I could certainly have wished that the business of the House had been so organised as to enable us to have this debate at a more reasonable hour.
The debate is timely, because the national health service now faces wrecking reforms which will fundamentally distort the delivery of health care. But even before these changes are brought about, no one who has been an NHS patient recently can deny that the service is in crisis. Cuts in patient services are being made by nine out of 10 health authorities to balance their books by the end of the month. Forced to produce a clear balance sheet before the new changes, health authorities have left newly built wards unopened and have closed surgical wards, shut maternity units and made bed reductions.
Yet just a month ago the Government were willing to give those hospitals a blank cheque to treat Gulf war casualties. That proves that it is not the resources which are lacking but the political will and the commitment to public services. Thankfully, our hospitals were not inundated with the sick and injured from the Gulf, but why is the money available during that crisis not now being used to rescue hospitals from their present funding crisis? Why are those resources not being used to bring down waiting lists?
Nearly 1 million people are waiting for operations; many have been waiting for over a year. In the West Midlands region in September 1990, there were 99,306 people on waiting lists, of which 20,000 had been waiting longer than a year. The sudden resignation of John Yates and his team last month proves that cosmetic attempts to manipulate waiting lists simply will not work. Slapping a two-year deadline on waiting lists will force health authorities to abandon some treatments and to treat less urgent cases more quickly.
What is needed is more money spent on doctors and nurses committed to getting the job done within the NHS. Mr. Yates told the Government that many NHS delays may be blamed on private work. Where there are many private beds, there are also longer waiting lists for operations. However, that was not the message that the Government wanted to hear. They would not sanction research into the connection between waiting lists, consultants' private work and the work that they do for the NHS. The Government are simply too committed to propping up the private sector.
The health service is literally crumbling around our ears. Seven per cent. of hospitals were built before 1890, and a staggering 80 per cent. before 1918. Old hospitals are difficult to keep clean, but privatisation and cuts in domestics' hours must share the blame for turning United Kingdom hospitals into buildings that now justify a Government health warning. The Audit Commission report published in The Independent yesterday spoke of the need for an additional £2 billion for maintenance.
Will the health service reforms sweep away the present crisis? Not a bit of it—they will make matters worse, by creating the same destructive forces of competition that have wreaked havoc in the United States. The Americans

have left the provision of health care to the market, and it has led to the most expensive, least effective, most unfair system in existence.
The reforms are a charter for bureaucrats and accountants. The cost of administering the NHS will soar. Far from solving the main problem facing the NHS—its chronic underfunding—the reforms will divert scarce resources from patient care into a costly administrative edifice. The bureaucratic nightmare will undermine and ultimately destroy the vital principles on which the current health service is based—the provision of quality care to those most in need.
The British Medical Association carried out a survey, which was published in this month's edition of its "News Review". It shows that health authorities are spending large sums of money on new administrative staff to implement the NHS review proposals. The BMA has identified new administrative posts, as advertised in the Health Service Journal, and found that administrators' salaries are likely to increase by at least £80 million this year.
In Birmingham, the district authorities and their units recruited 72 new senior managers during the six months of the survey. I want the Government to give a guarantee that the additional funding for that will not come out of the money that is needed for patient care. The reforms impose a market model on the provision of health care. Authorities are now the purchasers and the providers—with contracts to be placed, always assuming that the health authority, the purchaser, has the money. If, as in the case of one health authority within the West Midlands region, there is considerably less money—as much as £1·1 million—that means either the closing of wards, invariably surgical, or delays in the provision of care.
The South East Staffordshire community health council has told me of an elderly patient who has been waiting for a hearing aid since August. It is not a costly operation, but it would make a considerable difference to the quality of his life. He cannot receive one until April, because of spending and staffing restrictions. I am told that that situation is commonplace. The Staffordshire Association for the Deaf has withdrawn the provision of an audiology service at the Victoria hospital in Lichfield. So far, the health authority has not been able to provide its own service.
Obtaining sufficient revenue to run the new district general hospital at Tamworth is also a problem. That hospital will serve patients in the South East Staffordshire health authority area. It appears that that problem can be solved only by closing four or five of the peripheral units. However, for patients living in rural areas such as my constituency, where there is little or no public transport, even getting to a hospital can be a major problem, especially for women and pensioners who may not have access to a car.
The Mid Staffordshire health authority is currently reviewing the provision of health care in Rugeley. My constituents and GPs in Rugeley are concerned about losing access to respite care and GP beds currently available at the local hospital.
The impact of the lack of resources has an effect on patients and staff in hospitals. It is not good for a working team to have patients in different wards in a hospital. That presents problems for the medical and nursing staff. For example, if an orthopaedic patient is on an ear, nose and throat ward, the medical staff must spend time checking on


patients in wards on different floors of the hospital. They may not be quite as likely to detect changes in the patient's condition as they would if they were treating all the patients on the same ward.
The nursing staff face similar problems. The staff on the ENT ward will cope with the orthopaedic patient, but not as well as staff on an orthopaedic ward would cope. The latter staff are experienced and trained in those particular skills. All that is detrimental to good practice within hospitals.
The Government talk about the increased throughput of patients, but they do not talk about the readmission rate due to the lack of appropriate home care services. Staffing levels in our hospitals are an important factor. Many patients now have a high dependency level, requiring a lot of nursing attention. A shortage of qualified stall on a ward places additional pressures on junior nursing staff. It is hardly surprising that stress and burn-out amoung nurses are increasing.
It is now often difficult for nurses to be released from the ward for professional development because of staff shortages. The market in health care is creating stress, as departments and wards are told to make income. It is no longer possible to ask a physiotherapist to show staff how to lift a patient properly. The physiotherapist must charge, because the physiotherapy department has to generate income. Therefore, the professions are trying to sell their skills, and the good will involved in sharing skills is being eroded.
It also appears that no criticism of staff shortages is allowed. In The Guardian on Monday, there was a report of a consultant haematologist in the West Midlands region who spoke of her concern about staffing levels, and who has since been made redundant.
The introduction of a pricing system in NHS hospitals was bound to create variations. The publication this week of a survey conducted by the West Midlands health service monitoring unit has revealed what can only be described as a high street price war. A hip replacement operation in Mid Staffordshire health authority will cost £1,196, but in Sandwell it would cost £7,485. A hernia operation will cost £1,125 in Mid Staffordshire, but £2,489 at a trust hospital in Rugby. To have an ingrowing toenail removed costs £283 in mid-Staffordshire but only £90 at Queen Elizabeth's hospital, Birmingham. It costs £283 at Rugby.
Inevitably, this has caused a great deal of anxiety among the fund-holding GPs. Matthew Taylor, the director of the west midlands health monitoring unit, has said:
I would not like to be GP forced to decide between protecting the interests of the local general hospital and treating more patients more cheaply elsewhere.
It is right to ask why there are such incredible variations.

The Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Will the hon. Lady reflect on what she has just said? If I heard her correctly, she said that she would not like to choose between protecting the local hospital and treating more patients. It seems extraordinary to say that it is difficult to choose between the interests of a hospital as an institution and those of patients as people.

Mrs. Heal: I said that the difficulty was in choosing whether to protect the local general hospital or to treat more patients more cheaply elsewhere. The GP should not have to make that choice.
I repeat my question: why are there such incredible variations? Was any guidance issued by the Department of Health on a pricing policy? Can those relatively cheap authorities cope with the number of referrals that they are likely to receive? What would be the implications for the self-governing trusts if they did not attract sufficient referrals? Would they go out of business? An opted-out hospital will survive only if it is competitive. It will have to behave like any private hospital, providing financially profitable services rather than those which are medically necessary. There will be no local representation calling them to account. They will ignore the needs of the local community, in a bid to capture the market lead for expensive treatments available for patients far and wide.
Contracts will be won on price, not quality, of health care, because no one will be in a position to measure the latter. Patient choice will fly out of the window, because patients will have to go where the cheapest block contract can be negotiated, not where the best treatment is available.
The majority of people in this country need and use the national health service and its hospitals. We cannot claim to live in a civilised society if we are not prepared for those most in need.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: I welcome the opportunity to talk about the conditions in hospitals in the north Manchester area—an area with which you are familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because, before you reached your present prestigious and exalted position, you lived in the Manchester area. I am sure that you will know the hospitals that I shall mention.
Before Christmas I had to go for an eye inspection to a hospital in the northern section of Manchester known as the Jewish hospital, which was built before the war by the donations of the Jewish community in the Cheetham Hill area of the city. After the test, the doctor said that he would like me to return in six months for a further check-up on my eyes. He wrote down that he wanted me to return to that hospital. I smiled and said, "Are you sure, doctor?" He asked why. I said, "Are you not aware that the workmen are outside now demolishing the hospital?" He said, "Oh, yes, I had forgotten." He then wrote that I should go to the Northern hospital in Manchester. I smiled again and asked him if he was sure. Again, he asked why. I said that I had it on excellent authority that that hospital was also due to close. I said, "If you are giving me an appointment in six months' time, will the hospital be open?" He smiled and said, "Yes, you have a point. The best thing that can I do is to arrange for your to go there if it is still open. If it is not, we will send you somewhere else."
There are two hospitals; one is being knocked down and the other is going to close. Earlier last year, that indefatigable worker for Blackley, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham), invited me to attend a public meeting in the Moston Lane school where parents in the area were concerned about the proposed closure of the children's hospital at Booth Hall—a hospital that has had a marvellous reputation for more than 50 years, dealing with at least 100,000 children per year. The proposal is not only that that hospital but one in


Salford is to close. The idea is that a glass emporium will be built on the site of St. Mary's hospital in Manchester next to the Manchester Royal infirmary.
The parents in the area are extremely angry and I assure the Minister that if the proposal is serious he will have real trouble on his hands with them. I know the hospital well because when I was a young man I was a teacher in the area. Whenever a child was injured in the school it always fell to me to be asked, "Jim, will you take this child to the clinic in Moston lane or to the children's hospital," which I preferred as I was aware of the marvellous work for children at the hospital. The idea is now to build a new glass and marble emporium in the middle of the city at a cost of £40 million. The catch is that £20 million has to be found by voluntary subscription from the general public. I cannot see that happening. There will be tremendous opposition to the scheme.
I am sure that we all send our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), who is not very well and is in hospital. We all know that he fought hard to prevent the closure of yet another hospital in the north area of Manchester—Ancoats hospital. I know that hospital well because when I was a little boy I was the hospital's best patient. I was constantly in trouble, I was mischievous and I knew my way to the hospital blindfold. When I had an injury, I would go there and the doctor would look at me and say, "Not you again, Callaghan." I know the value of that hospital, but unfortunately it, too, is to close.
The isolation hospital at Monsall is set in wonderful grounds, but it is proposed that it also should close. Just over the border in south Manchester, the Withington hospital is also to close. Five hospitals are to be closed in the north, and two in the south, in Withington and in Salford, are to be closed.
Are the rumours true? I know that some of them are because the buildings are being knocked down. Will the Minister clarify the position so that people in Manchester will know that they will not have only three hospitals—one in the north, one in the centre and one in the south?
I also wish to draw the Minister's attention to the services provided at two of the hospitals which are to remain. One is the Manchester Royal infirmary. Just before Christmas, a constituent complained to me that he needed a cardiac bypass but had been told in August by the authorities at the hospital that he would have to wait until November before the operation could be completed. When he telephoned in November, he was told that he could not have it done in November. He could not go in December. He was then told to come back in January, but in January he was again told, "We are sorry, but you cannot come in January after all." He wrote to me that he still did not have a date for that very serious operation.
I wrote immediately to the general manager, Mr. Derek Hathaway and was surprised by his answer. He replied:
Part of the cardiac surgery unit had to close in October because of financial restraints
that is another way of saying cuts—
and because of staff sickness and maternity leave.
The hospital was to reopen in January with six beds and I am told that eight beds are now open. Mr. Hathaway said:
It is hoped we will get back to full capacity in the very near future.

The Manchester Evening News correspondent, Ian Craig, related the incident under the headline:
Don't have a heart attack in Manchester. It is inconvenient.
I would say that if a person is going to have a heart attack, he should be careful where he has it. I received figures showing that in north Manchester during the past year 9·2 per cent. of operations were cancelled. In Rochdale it was 9·9 per cent. and in Salford 11·1 per cent. So it is not just the hospital to which I have been referring that has been affected.
The second hospital in the north of Manchester that I am told is to remain open is the North Manchester general hospital, also known as the Crumpsall hospital. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley—that marvellous Member of Parliament—and I have gone to that hospital every year to discuss its problems with Professor Moore
Last year, we were asked by a senior consultant if we could help to obtain the services of a second consultant who specialised in diabetes and endocrinology because there was an acute need for such a consultant in the north-west region. To prove his case he drew our attention to the report of a working party on a survey of people with diabetes.
That survey was carried out on behalf of the North Western regional health authority and the working party was chaired by Professor Stephen Tomlinson. Its report is far too long and detailed for me to quote, but basically it said that there are about 60,000 people with diabetes in the north-west region, 12,000 of whom require insulin injections and the remaining 48,000 of whom are managed by diet alone or diet and tablets. The incidence of both types of patients is, unfortunately, increasing.
All diabetics have significantly increased mortality rates compared with non-diabetics. Diabetes shortens life predominantly because of the marked increase in the incidence of coronary artery disease and because of renal failure. Diabetes is the commonest cause of blindness and foot ulcers leading to gangrene, resulting in diabetes being the commonest cause of elective lower limb amputation. Increasing evidence suggests that complications are preventable. That is why the consultant was telling us that he wanted another consultant to try to prevent such incidents.
Costing the average stay in hospital, the committee estimated that in the north-west region it would cost more than £40 million. Accordingly, the working party was asked by the regional medical officer if he would construct a strategic plan for diabetic services in the north-west region for the next 10 years. The aim was simply to identify what was available, where the gaps were in the services and what it would take in terms of capital and revenue resources to fill those gaps.
The survey was conducted not simply as an exercise in cost cutting but principally to improve services within the financial constraints which currently exist. It would have been easy simply to reiterate the recommendation made by the British Diabetic Association and the Royal College of Physicians for optimal standards for diabetes care in the health district to indicate what the ideal situation might be.
It became apparent that in every district consultants with a specialist interest in diabetes are extremely keen to provide a first-class service but lack of money—I repeat, lack of money—has often made it difficult for them to achieve the improvements that they sought. They had to build on existing resources which resulted in a quality of


service and distribution of resources which varied markedly from district to district. It is widely recognised not only by health care professionals but by management that there are major defects in services for diabetics and that there is the will to improve. them. Major improvements were made in a number of districts while the survey was being undertaken. The purpose of the report was not to criticise or to judge but to identify need and establish priority as realistically as possible in the hope that health care professionals and management would find the report informative and helpful.
On physical resources, the report shows that, of 19 hospitals, 11 have no education room and eight have no system of annual reviews of patients to pick up complications early, which is necessary. Bolton and Withington meet none of the recommendations on staffing requirements. Burnley, Leigh, Tameside, Park and Wythenshawe meet one of the four recommendations. Lancaster meet two and Blackburn, Blackpool, Bury, north Manchester, Rochdale, Stockport and west Lancashire meet three.
Comparing physical resources with staffing shows that, in the main, the districts with the fewest staff have the least physical resources. In four districts—Lancashire, central Manchester, north Manchester and south Manchester—the clinic numbers are larger than expected. Interestingly, in Bolton, Bury, Rochdale and Ormskirk only one physician has been designated as having an interest in diabetes. In five districts—north Manchester, Preston, Stockport, Tameside and Trafford—only one consultant deals with a large clinic population. A district to district variation is also apparent in nurses per thousand clinic population. Blackburn, north Manchester, Stockport and Tameside fair worse than other districts. Three of those districts—north Manchester, in which I am interested, Stockport and Tameside are among the most deprived for consultant staffing, which has not been compensated by high staffing of specialist nursing.
The report recommends that particular attention be given to the needs of district hospitals in Bolton, Burnley, Tameside, Park, south Manchester, north Manchester, Rochdale and Blackburn. It says that every effort. should be made to address the priority of an additional physician with an interest in diabetes in north Manchester. That was what the consultant who contacted the hon. Member for Blackley and me was requesting.
The report said that at the appropriate time an additional consultant with an interest in diabetes should be appointed in Bolton, Wythenshawe and Preston. It recommended that a health professional should be designated to co-ordinate the development of the diabetic service in the north western region.
Having read the superb working report, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and I wrote to the chairman of North Western regional health authority and asked for an additional consultant for the region, based in North Manchester general hospital at Crumpsall. Needless to say, the request was refused—no doubt in the interests of cutting corners and costs. Unfortunately, the consultant who contacted the hon. Member for Blackley and has left the hospital, which is a double tragedy. The Minister must agree that if such conditions continue in the region's hospitals there will be nothing left of the NHS except its good name.

Ms. Diane Abbott: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I remind the hon. Lady that, if she chooses to speak in this debate, she will not be able to speak on the subject to which she has put her name. She can speak only once tonight.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) for raising this issue, and for the extremely important issues that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan). They are regarded as important not just in the constituencies of my hon. Friends but throughout the country. Why, therefore, are we discussing them at a quarter to one in the morning? If they are regarded as important, they are worth discussing during the day.
It is about time that the working hours of the House of Commons were changed. The Minister seems to think that it is absolutely right and proper to organise our business in this way, but it is about time that we dragged ourselves into the 20th century and prepared ourselves for the 21st by modernising our procedures, so that issues of national importance are discussed during the day instead of in the small hours of the morning.

Mr. Dorrell: I do not want to debate the hours that the House sits with the hon. Lady, but she said that she would prefer to debate these issues in prime parliamentary time. Between 3.30 and 7 o'clock yesterday, the Opposition tabled a motion for debate, but they chose to change the subject. I should be interested to hear why they did so, in view of what she has just said.

Ms. Harman: The Minister knows that my point is that the House ought not to have to debate such an issue at this hour. He has made a cheap debating point about the subject that we chose for our Supply day debate. Some of his colleagues see the sense, as we do, of changing the way that we organise our business, which at the moment is archaic, inefficient and more suited to what happened a couple of centuries ago. The Minister aligns himself with those who look back to previous centuries rather than with those who look forward and want a modern and efficient legislature.
This is an important debate. The Government are allowing the national health service to go downhill. The cash squeeze has resulted in long waiting lists. Operations are cancelled. Hospitals are crumbling. Ambulances are no longer getting to where they are wanted on time. Even cancer patient operations are being cancelled. The Government's commitment to the national health service can only be described as lip service. NHS treatment, many people feel, is wonderful, but they cannot be sure that they will be able to get it when they need it.
The Minister will no doubt say, as he has said on many previous occasions, "Crisis—what crisis? Problems—what problems? All that the bed closures mean is that there has been a change in the way that the NHS works. It's nothing to do with budget cuts; it's just a change in procedure." I remind the House of what he said in a press statement on 14 February:


Falling numbers of beds in the acute sector of the National Health Service are a reliable indicator of the improving quality of health care.
I challenge the Minister to name any other organisation, inside or outside the national health service, that believes that bed cuts are a sign that patient care is improving.
The Secretary of State for Health was reported in The Independent on 9 November 1990 as saying that many bed closures were not for financial reasons but for rationalisation purposes. However, the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts believes that total bed closures in England this year for purely financial reasons will amount to over 3,500. Bed closures will be for that reason alone, not for rationalisation, or changes in medical practice.
Bed cuts have had an effect on the services provided. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to cancelled operations. The Minister was forced to admit that over 300,000 NHS operations were cancelled last year. Thousands of standard letters are sent to patients telling them not to go into hospital because their operations have been cancelled. Some patients have had their operations cancelled not once but repeatedly. Each such letter that goes out causes pain and misery for the person who receives it, dashed hopes and messed up plans. It is just not good enough.
To save money, NHS managers are telling doctors to go home, not to do their full week's work, and to cancel operating lists. So operating theatres lie idle and waiting lists grow. That is not an efficient way to run the service.
Because they cannot reduce waiting lists by treating patients who need care, health authorities are looking at other ways of cutting them down. North East Thames regional health authority has come up with plans to limit the availability of some procedures on the NHS, one of which is varicose vein repair. I know how that will work: the service will be available only for clinical reasons. So postmen and milkmen will have their veins operated on, but housewives caring for small children—such women's veins throb in exactly the same way as those of the professionals whom I have mentioned—will be regarded as wanting the operation for reasons of vanity, and they will be denied it.
First it is said that bed closures are taking place for rationalisation purposes, and are a sign of good health in the NHS. The next stage is to reduce the number of people who can get on the waiting lists, as North East Thames regional health authority has done.
A letter from the acting unit general manager, Peter Burroughs, and from the chairman of the management board of Guy's hospital, outlines a package of cuts to meet the hospital's budget deadline. The final paragraph reads:
Finally we must limit the number of patients being seen in out-patients"—
and this despite rising demand.
We propose a 15 per cent. reduction in new attendances and a 30 per cent. cull of repeat attenders, and we would ask you to examine your clinic arrangements without delay.
That means that doctors must stop patients coming, and must stop treating them.
The Government can no longer claim—I hope that the Minister will not try to do so—that the NHS is treating more patients than ever before. Bed cuts, budget deficits and frozen posts are taking their toll. The figures are

beginning to show that, despite growing need for treatment, the number of patients being treated by the NHS is falling.
There is evidence of falling activity rates in the NHS. Figures that I have for Camberwell, City, and Hackney and Riverside district health authorities show that the number of patients treated this year will be smaller than that treated last year. The same is true of the Oxford regional health authority—[Interruption.] If the Minister cares to challenge that, perhaps he should ask that health authority whether it is true.
The same applies to North West Thames and North East Thames regional health authorities. They too will treat fewer patients this year than last, and there is concern about North Western health authority and Trent health authority.
The NHS is also doing a lower proportion of non-emergency work. Right-wing Tories in the "No Turning Back" group have long argued that the NHS should be a crisis service, and that non-emergency work should be shunted off to the private sector. But budget cuts have meant that, without any parliamentary debate, that is increasingly what is happening. The NHS is turning into an emergency service, with non-emergency patients pushed into private hospitals or left by the wayside.
At Lewisham hospital, a consultant told me that one patient waited from 9 am until midnight for an operation for acute appendicitis while the hospital tried to find a bed and a free operating theatre. Recently, one of the hospital's four main operating theatres was closed for two months to save money. As the hospital cannot advertise for nursing staff, because of budget restrictions, theatres are short of trained staff. So there are more cancellations.
The hospital reports that one gynaecologist has a waiting list of a year for hysterectomies. People are not referred for that operation unless they are in pain or suffering from bleeding. The operation is not undertaken lightly—yet women have to wait for a year to have it. A urinogenitary surgeon said in February that he had 50 patients to be admitted for operations to Lewisham hospital, and that 22 had had to have their operations cancelled, when some had cancer of the bladder. That is not good enough.
The Independent reported, on 21 February, the case of a 36-year-old woman who was suspected of having suffered a pulmonary embolism, a blood clot in the lungs, which could prove fatal, but for whom no bed could be found in five London hospitals. The doctor tried London, Bart's, Homerton, Whipp's Cross and St. Andrews. All refused the emergency. That shows that even emergency cases are not being treated.
I hope that the Minister will not say of cancelled operations that sometimes the patients do not turn up. He should remember that many patients rely on the ambulance service to get them to hospital; if that service is being cut and journeys are being cancelled because "no vehicles are available"—the new and growing category—patients cannot get into hospital. I draw the Minister's attention to the recent London ambulance service figures, which show that, in January this year 10,476 non-emergency journeys were cancelled because no vehicles were available. What answer does he have to that? How can he preside over a system that is letting people down so badly and over an NHS that is inefficient because patients cannot come in for their operations?
It is not as if the accident and emergency service has benefited—far from it. The Orcon standard lays down the minimum time within which ambulances should get to an emergency. Judged by that, the London ambulance service, and many others, are failing to get to accidents and emergencies on time. Part of the Orcon standard is that an ambulance in a metropolitan area should get to an accident or emergency within seven minutes in 50 per cent. of its cases in a year. In London, the average is 12 per cent. of calls being answered within seven minutes.
As my hon. Friends have said, the fabric of our hospitals is crumbling. Why should those being treated in NHS hospitals have to put up with leaky roofs, draughty corridors, torn lino? Why is it that, year after year, because of the underfunded pay awards, money is taken from maintenance budgets, with the result that important maintenance is not done? Years of the spending squeeze has resulted in a huge maintenance backlog in the hospitals, and that is not good enough.
We know that the Government have underfunded the pay awards and have not taken account of inflation. I hope that the Minister will be honest about that. It has meant that the district health authorities have had to take money from their other revenue areas to pay for these pay awards, which the Government announce with a great pat on the back for themselves. They also make assumptions about the level of inflation that are far below the true level.
The Government are not prepared to invest sufficiently in a national health service because they want fundamental changes and the commercialisation of health care, and a market economy in the health service. Therefore, pressure is put on health authorities to make them balance the figures rather than to supply the care that is needed. That is what Guy's hospital, the North-East health authority and so many others are doing.
The Government are not happy to see the waiting lists grow, because they know that they are the major recruiting sergeants of private medicine. They have already made clear their commitment to private medicine, with tax relief for health insurance for the elderly. People are desperately worried. They do not agree with what the Government are doing—opting out of hospitals, and tax relief for private health care—or with the two-tier Americanised system that the Government want. For all the Government's propaganda, they have not fooled anybody. The public know, however, that the next Labour Government will abolish the internal market. That Government will bring opted-out hospitals back into the local district health authorities, which is what the people want. They—the Labour Government—will invest in our health service so that it truly becomes a service upon which the public can rely.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I begin on what should be an uncontroversial note by agreeing with the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) that debates about the national health service should proceed against the background of a shared commitment to making the NHS service into a health-care service of which we can all be proud, recognising that the vast majority of our fellow citizens—in emergencies, virtually all of them—rely on the NHS as the prime or sole source of health care. There is no division between the two sides of the House about that.
The attempts by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) to erect the Aunt Sally of a hidden agenda and a determination to foster a move to private medicine are unsupported by the facts. It reflects on the paucity of the arguments that the Opposition are able to muster against the Government's record on health care that they can generate steam and enthusiasm only by arguing against a policy that the Government do not espouse.
The Government believe, like the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, that the NHS is one of Britain's great achievements in the post-war years, and that it is something of which we all have reason to be proud. The Government are as deeply committed to it emotionally as the Opposition. The difference between our record and that of Labour Governments is that, for a variety of reasons, we have been better able than successive Labour Governments to meet the aspirations that we set of improving the quality of health care that is available through the NHS. I shall seek to demonstrate that that is true on a number of counts.
I shall deal first with two of the issues which were raised by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan). As distinct from his hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Staffordshire and for Peckham, he talked about serious local issues and asked for specific answers.
There is a short-term and a long-term question associated with the two hospitals at Wythenshaw and Withington. There is a short-term proposal to centralise maternity care at Wythenshaw, to which the local community health council has objected. Under the normal rules of management within the NHS, the proposal—because it has been supported by the regional health authority—will come ultimately to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to be determined. I have said already to some of the hon. Friends of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton that I shall be happy to meet a delegation to discuss the matter when the proposal comes to Ministers to be decided. Assuming that the CHC maintains its objection, it will fall to my right hon. Friend to make a decision.

Mr. Callaghan: I welcome what the Minister has said about the hospitals in the south of Manchester. I said, however, that five hospitals in the north of the city are to close. Will the Minister respond to my remarks about those closures?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are procedures within the management structure of the health service to determine whether such decisions are made by the local health authority or by Ministers. We can run a service that expends £30,000 million a year and employs 1 million only on the basis that management authority is delegated to local decision makers. Ministers come to make decisions on hospital closures only if the local institutions of the NHS are unable to come to an agreement on what should happen in a locality. The decision to close hospitals in the north of Manchester will come to Ministers only if the CHC maintains an objection to the proposal of the DHA. I cannot respond in detail on each of the other five hospitals in the city.
On the longer-term position of Wythenshawe and Withington, a proposal has been published to centralise acute care on the Wythenshawe site in the very much longer term. If it ever came to fruition, that would have to


come to Ministers as a major investment proposal requiring approval in principle. No such application has been made, or is expected in the immediate future. Obviously there would be plenty of opportunity for representations if such a proposal were to be made by the district and endorsed by the region.
The hon. Gentleman also asked questions about the provision of diabetes care in the north-west. I shall write to him when I have had a chance to examine that in more detail.
The speeches of the hon. Members for Mid-Staffordshire and for Peckham were not as sharply focused on the specific circumstances of local health provision. The hon. Ladies were much more concerned to try to demonstrate that the health service has suffered from a crisis of underfunding of the Government's making. If I may say so, both made a good stab at arguing a virtually unarguable case. I believe that the facts on the funding of the national health service show that the Government's record is distinguished and easily stands comparison with that of their predecessor.
The revenue budget allocated to the national health service- for 1991–92 has risen by over half in real terms, compared with the revenue budget which we inherited. It is up by 52 per cent., an average growth rate in real terms over the years that the Government have been in office of 3 per cent. per annum.
That figure of 3 per cent. is an interesting statistic, because it is exactly the figure by which the Labour Government cut the revenue expenditure of the health service in real terms in 1977–78—something that the Conservative Government have never done. In 1977–78, Labour cut the revenue budget of the health service by the average amount by which it has grown in real terms since we came to power.
The 3 per cent. figure is also interesting because, on 4 June 1987, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition committed the Labour party in government to raising NHS expenditure by 3 per cent. above the inflation rate. That is precisely what the Government have done during the 12 years that they have been in office. It is hard for the Labour party to argue that we are underfunding the health service, when our average increase over 12 years has been precisely what the leader of the Labour party said during the last election campaign would be his commitment.
If we move from revenue funding to capital funding, the facts are even more telling. In the 12 years that we have been in office, the hospital service capital budget has risen by 63 per cent. in real terms. The capital budgets of regional health authorities next year will go up by over 116 per cent. in cash terms. There are currently 450 schemes around the country valued at over £1 million which are going ahead under the Government's capital investment programme in the national health service.
As I say, that reflects an increase in real-terms commitment to NHS capital of 62 per cent. over 12 years, compared with a real-terms cut of 16 per cent. in the capital budget of the national health service during the five years of the last Labour Government. It is hard for Labour Members to argue that we are underfunding the service

when we have increased the capital budget by 62 per cent. in real terms after they had cut it in their period in office by 16 per cent. in real terms.
In arguing the case of underfunding of the health service, the hon. Ladies are confronted by other problems. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) is on record as saying that Labour's only two spending commitments ahead of the next general election relate to child benefit and pensions—neither of which has anything to do with the health service. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Peckham, because she is left to build the argument that the Government are underfunding the health service, but is prevented from committing her party to any increased expenditure by the hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East, whom she will find very much tougher still if he were ever to move into No. 11 Downing street.
Various Labour party spokesmen have used various figures in trying to measure the alleged extent to which the service is underfunded. The hon. Lady is at least modest when she seeks to substantiate that claim. On 26 November 1987, she said that the health service needed an extra £200 million—with which I suppose she thought that she could squeeze by without being picked up on that expenditure by the hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was somewhat more ambitious. After a claim on 14 January 1988 that the health service was underfunded by £1·3 billion, by 20 April 1990 he was saying that the figure was £3 billion. By 22 October 1990, it was said to be a sum exceeding £4 billion.
I am sure that Labour welcomes the fact that the health service expenditure programme concluded by the then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) means that next year we will increase spending by £3 billion. Only one of Labour's figures is more than the amount by which we are increasing the health service budget next year alone.
The hon. Member for Peckham also has around her neck a series of commitments about the way in which any increased health service budget will be used by an incoming Labour Government. The Opposition have committed themselves, for example, to abandoning competitive tendering—which would cost £110 million out of the vote, without one extra patient being treated.
Midland Montagu, the independent brokers, examined the way in which Labour has said that it will use additional resources, and estimated in an article published in Doctor in June 1990 that the hon. Member for Livingston would have to secure from the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East a total of £770 million to cover the extra administrative and other costs involved, before treating one extra patient.
Various Labour Members have sought to draw attention, quite rightly, to the pay of national health service employees. The service is the largest employer in our society, and it has an obligation to be a good employer. That is why nurses' salaries in the national health service have risen by 43·5 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared to the 21 per cent. cut in the five years that the Labour party was in power. That is why the hospital doctor's salary has risen by 36 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared with a 6·4 per cent. cut in real terms during the period that the Labour party was in power.
The Labour party has a record, in terms of its management of the national health service, that no party could be proud of. It has considerable difficulty in substantiating its claim that our record demonstrates anything other than full commitment to the future and to the development of the national health service.
However, there is one lesson that perhaps the Labour party has learnt—let us be grateful for small mercies. That is that the only way that one can run a free, universal, tax-funded health service—to which all the major parties in the House are committed—is by subjecting it to a cash limit. That is something to which the Labour party are as explicitly committed as the Government. If one wishes to fund health care out of tax revenues, it necessarily follows that one must cash-limit the vote, and by cash-limiting it one imposes upon the management the obligation to make disciplined choices about the way in which the resources voted into the health service are used.
That is where I take most vehement exception to the allegation of the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire that the Government's reforms of the national service are "wrecking reforms". They are no such thing. They reflect the Government's commitment to ensuring that there is a management system in place for the service that allows us, in a disciplined and ordered way, to make the choices that are the inevitable result of cash-limiting the vote and resources available to it

Mrs. Heal: One of the criticisms of successive Conservative Health Ministers has been about the bureaucracy of the health service. How does the Minister answer the charge that I put to him about the increased administration that his so-called "reforms" of the health service are creating?

Mr. Dorrell: I was moving to that matter. Rather than asking the hon. Lady to rely on my analysis or that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I can answer her best by asking her to rely upon the analysis of Mr. Chris Ham, who I am told is a regular contributor to the columns of Marxism Today—not a magazine that I read regularly. I am told that Mr. Ham contributes to the magazine on a rather more regular basis than either of my right hon. Friends to whom the hon. Members for Heywood and Middleton and for Mid-Staffordshire referred
Ham said in The Independent on 27 June:
Only those blind to the weaknesses of the NHS deny the need for change.
I would not argue that the hon. Member for Peckham and her party are so blind to the need for change that they, do not recognise that something needs to be done to restructure the management of the national health service.
The Opposition made a rather half-hearted stab at describing how they would change the management of the national health service. It has always seemed to me an absurd proposition that an organisation that spends £30,000 million and employs 1 million people will somehow run itself and that there is no need for managers. Of course we need management systems in place which will exploit the new technologies and methods used outside the health service to run large organisations, to ensure that the choices made by the service are made in full possession of the facts, and in a disciplined and ordered way. In my view, that is the only basis upon which the taxpayer can be reassured that the revenues that go into the health service are successfully used to secure high-quality health care.
Health care management is about achieving the double trick of good quality health care for the patient and good value for money for the taxpayer—that is what the investment in management is designed to achieve

Mr. Callaghan: I am interested in this theme of management efficiency. I asked the Minister earlier about the possible closure of five hospitals in north Manchester and two in the south; he is such a good manager that he could not even tell me whether those hospitals were going to close. Where is the good management there?

Mr. Dorrell: I told the hon. Gentleman that I believed that the only basis on which a large organisation could be managed effectively was the delegation of as much detailed influence as possible to the local manager. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will write to him and give him the specific details for which he has asked.
If the hon. Gentleman really believes that it is possible to run an organisation the size of the national health service on the basis that every decision of any consequence is made by Ministers, let me remind him of the old saying about Philip II of Spain: it was said that, if people had to wait for the King of Spain's permission to die, everyone would be immortal. He over-centralised. Running a large organisation means appointing good-quality managers, and then authorising them to make decisions on the basis of the local information that is at their disposal.

Ms. Harman: Why, then, has the Secretary of State kept to himself the decision whether local hospitals should opt out? This rhetoric about giving people choice at local level simply is not matched by the system that allows central decisions by the Secretary of State about which hospitals can opt out, and does not allow ballots or a say for local people

Mr. Dorrell: This is the first time that I have heard the trust initiative presented as a centralisation of management power. The hon. Lady is shifting her ground. She is no longer interested in arguing with us about funding; she now wants to suggest that trusts constitute a centralisation of management power. They are, of course, precisely the opposite. They reflect the Government's commitment to delegated management—to enhancing the power, influence, discretion and flexibility that are available to local management, and returning to a local community the opportunity to run its own hospital. It is hard to argue that 57 individual decisions constitute gross centralisation.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton obliquely mentioned acute bed spaces in his questions about Manchester hospital provision. It is important, in any assessment of the Government's record on the national health service, to look less at the number of people employed in the service and the amount spent on the service, and more at the number of patients treated by the service and the quality of care that they have received.
The hon. Member for Peckham always prefers to avoid discussion of activity levels in the health service. I am not surprised. Since 1979, the number of acute in-patient treatments has risen by 25 per cent. The hon. Lady tried to use the anecdotal evidence that she has been able to secure by ringing around a few health authorities to allege that this year may show a minor downward trend. I do not know the answer to that, because this year is not yet over. As I said during her speech, we shall wait and see what this year's figures show.
What I am absolutely confident about is that this year's figures will still show a substantial increase in health service activities over the 12 years in which the present Government have been in power. So far, the published figures—the accurately audited figures—show a 25 per cent. increase in the acute-patient activity level, and a more than doubling of the day-case activity level. Surely that undermines the hon. Lady's suggestion that our commitment to the future of the service is open to question.
Furthermore, the increase in acute patient treatments—both in-patients and day cases—as I said in the press release from which the hon. Member for Peckham quoted, is not merely a question of increased patient throughput; it is also a question of higher-quality health care. We are able to treat those patients with fewer acute beds; we require them to stay in hospital for shorter periods than was previously necessary.
This is not something that started in 1979. The suggestion that the closure of acute beds was invented by this Government is very wide of the mark. The closure of acute beds occurred before 1979 and has gone on since then, and the major reason for it is that modern medicine is less traumatic, in the technical sense, for the patient: the patient recovers faster from an operation involving minimally invasive surgery than he did from the techniques of 15 or 20 years ago. The purpose of health care is not to require people to withdraw from the community and occupy an actute bed; its purpose is to get patients out of hospital and back into the community as quickly as possible. The modern health service allows us to treat more patients with fewer acute beds.
That is welcome on two counts: first, we are able to meet more demands made upon us by the patients; secondly, we can meet them in a way that is less traumatic to the patient and therefore constitutes higher-quality, better-value health care.

Ms. Harman: Does the Minister not then accept the figure of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts that over 3,500 beds have been closed for purely financial reasons?

Mr. Dorrell: I certainly do not accept the proposition that one can distinguish between a bed closed for financial reasons and one closed for any other reason. As I said five minutes ago, the Labour party is as deeply committed—and rightly so—as we are to the proposition that the only basis on which the health service can be run is by cash-limiting the vote and then requiring managers to make choices.
Under the previous Government and under this Government, managers have quite rightly decided that, in using resources, it is more important for them to treat more patients than it is to keep open beds. That is a choice that managers make week by week, month by month, and not one in which it is possible to distinguish between a bed closure made for financial reasons and one made for some clinical reason.
If the hon. Lady does not understand that, I do not believe that she understands anything about managing a large organisation. Managers are there to make choices, and the choices they make are about the way in which resources are used.
I should like to move on briefly to waiting lists, another subject which came up during the speeches of both the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire and the hon. Member for Peckham, and which again reflects well on the record of this Government and badly on the record of our Labour predecessors. The fact about waiting lists—this is glossed over by spokesmen for the Labour party—is that the in-patient waiting list is now lower than it was in 1979, despite the fact that 25 per cent. more in-patients are being treated than in 1979.
Furthermore, there are some quite interesting statistics in the history of waiting lists. It is not only during the present period of Conservative government that we have been able to cut waiting lists. During the period of the Labour Government of 1974–79, waiting lists rose by 50 per cent. Since this Government came to power, as I reminded the House, they have been cut, as they were during the period of the previous Tory Government in 1970–74. So, since 1970, under both periods of Conservative rule, waiting lists have been cut; under the period of Labour rule, waiting lists rose by 50 per cent. It is hard for the Labour party to argue against that background that our waiting list record is somehow a measure of weak commitment to the health service.
Let me, however, give the hon. Member for Peckham the defence, lest she should have forgotten it, to the charge that her party's record on waiting lists is not as good as she might wish it to be. Waiting lists are not unimportant, especially when they rise by 50 per cent. in five years, but they are not the principal problem. It does not matter very much how many people are on the waiting list, but rather how quickly a patient gets into hospital. The statistics on that are even more telling. Half of all NHS in-patients are admitted immediately; they are not put on to a waiting list. Half the remaining half go into hospital within six weeks. The problem of long waiting lists undoubtedly exists, but it exists only within a quarter of the number of people requiring in-patient treatment. The waiting list initiative has been directed precisely at that quarter.
The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire referred to the record of John Yates——

Mr. Mark Fisher: Why did he leave?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman had better ask Mr. Yates that question.
I applaud the fact that, during the period that Mr. Yates had a consultancy contract with the Department, he managed to cut waiting lists, in the worst cases, by 34 per cent. We have now recruited another consultancy to continue precisely the work that Mr. Yates was doing. We continue to be committed to the proposition that the long wait on the tail end of the waiting list is unacceptable.
Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire, who appeared to think that, when a consultant had accepted a person on his waiting list, it was acceptable for the wait for relatively minor routines to be spun out, we believe that a high priority must attach to reducing the worst of the waiting periods. We must remember, however, that the tail of the NHS waiting list is a relatively small part of the total number of people waiting for treatment.
I do not believe that either the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire or the hon. Member for Peckham made any progress in establishing that the Government are


anything but deeply committed to the success of the NHS, and furthermore have a record that easily stands comparison with that of our predecessors.

Museums and Galleries

Mr. John Bowis: This debate takes place in what we deem to be today, while the rest of the world considers it to be tomorrow. When we reach what will be accepted by them as being today, I think that our yesterday will have been impossible, even on a 24-hour clock. This is an arts debate, so it might be appropriate to sum up the predicament with our hours by recalling the words of Walter de la Mare's "Peacock Pie" poem, "Poor Jim Jay":

"Do-Diddle-Di-Do Poor Jim Jay
Got stuck fast in yesterday …
We pulled, we pulled from 7 til 12
Jim too frightened to help himself
But all in vain the clock struck 1
And there was Jim a little bit gone …
At half past 5 you scarce could see
A glimse of his flapping handkerchee …
Come tomorrow the neighbours say
He'll be past crying for, Poor Jim Jay."
I sympathise with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and with the staff of the House who have to stay up this night——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): And tomorrow

Mr. Bowis: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am also grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) for being here. They have at least one thing in common—both have been recent and most welcome visitors to the Battersea arts centre, in which I must declare a non-pecuniary, if not impecunious interest as a director, unpaid. I also declare my past, even somewhat pecuniary, interest in a company which had an interest in the project for a museum of building.
I am sorry that no Liberal Democrat Member is with us tonight—in fact, none has appeared for any of the five debates so far. I had hoped that one might have come to this debate, because when I was looking at the artwork for the natural history museum logo I noticed a symbol that looked remarkably like the symbol of the Liberal Democrats—the phoenix—and I had hoped that the Liberals would explain that

Mr. Frank Haynes: In complimenting people in the Chamber, the hon. Gentleman left out the Opposition Whip, who has a particular interest in the arts. Moreover, when the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has gone to bed, I shall be here all night as the duty Whip. The hon. Gentleman left me out

Mr. Bowis: I would not dream of ignoring the two artistic usual channels. I should not omit my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden): Dulwich is synonymous with the arts because of its collections and the eloquence of its hon. Member on their behalf.
Our view of museums is conditioned from childhood. From our early days of sticking our pictures up on walls, we come to appreciate that, if something is good, it is hung up for people to go and see. We gradually learn about the past, and our curiosity causes us to want to discover what the past is all about. We therefore begin to visit museums. However, when I was a child, my local museums were predominantly dull and the national museums were overwhelming, if not forbiding.
I have seen a dramatic change in the outlook, presentation and interest in museums. If we visit what the former Minister for the Arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Sir R. Luce) described as the mosaic of museums, it is clear how museums have improved, how much more welcoming they are, how much more there is to do in them and how much more understandable are the exhibits. The museums and galleries industry must take great credit for that.
Museums date back many centuries. The first museum opened to the public was the Royal Armouries in the time of Charles II. The British and Scottish museums were opened in the 18th century and there was a great expansion in the number of museums in the last 20 years of the 19th century. There were about 200 local museums by the 1890s. There was a great post-war expansion through the 1970s, totalling 950 museums, and there are more than 2,500 museums today.
There has been a dramatic increase recently in the number of museums. In particular, many independent museums have started up and there has been much innovative work. For example, there is an exhibition of trainers at the science museum sponsored by a well-known sportswear company. It is clear that museum curators and administrators have altered their approach, and that is welcome. It enlivens museums.
When we consider museums, we are not simply considering the most obvious establishments. Galleries and museums in many other areas are connected with the arts. I pay great credit to the south bank, the national theatre and the Barbican for the way in which they and others have contributed gallery space in London.
The Museums Association was 100 years old in 1989; it celebrated with Museums Year, which brought a new awareness to the public of what is available in our museums. There are many types of museum. Some house personal collections such as the Burrell collection and the Greenwich fan museum. Many museums record local history and artistic achievement. Others, like the theatre museum and the museum of the moving image, reflect the performing arts. There are also the national collections, which I would describe as Stanley Gibbons collections, in which the aim is to have one of everything.
The aim of our museums should be to bring together the facts, and often the artefacts, of the past so that we can educate and stimulate the current generation and provide a heritage for future generations. The Government have a good story to tell, and it is because I am confident in the quality of their achievement to date that in this debate I shall press them to go yet further. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our record on funding of the arts. On funding of our national museums and galleries, we have a superb record.
In 1985, we were funding museums to the tune of £81 million. By 1990, that was up to £165 million, with a further £10 million going to the Museums and Galleries Commission. I mention that because when, I served on the Standing Committee on the Education Reform Bill, I and other colleagues spent some time ensuring that the Horniman and Geffrye museums became national museums independent of local authorities. Some of the increase from £3 million to £10 million and to £12 million in a couple of years is to ensure that those museums can

flourish. It was a great joy to see them launched with independent status. We wish them well. By 1993, the figure will be up to £193 million, including the £12 million to which I referred.
Our record on funding is good on buildings and pretty adequate on the running costs. I shall come back to the purchase grants, which have been more frozen than progressive. Some 80 per cent. of the running costs of our national museums and galleries are staff-related. Staff are tied to the civil service. The commission has recommended in the past that that should be looked at. I hope that my right hon. Friend is considering whether the automatic tie to civil service grades is in the best interests of the museums, particularly at a time when the staff seem to question that link.
We should seek ways of increasing purchase grants. We have almost said that because purchasing costs have risen so much and so quickly, it is impossible to keep up. We must ensure that we can continue adding to our collections. Of course, there are many ways of doing that. But central Government funding, as well as sponsorship, donations and so on, has a part to play.
I commend the work of our national museums in expanding outside their home cities. Often, the home city is London. There are 45 branches of the national bodies in other locations, 11 of which have been formed in the past 10 years. I cite the two satellites—if that is the right word—of the science museum at York and Bradford. I welcome the improvement fund for exhibition spaces, which has enabled much good work to be done. We have seen the first chunk of that. I hope that we shall hear soon that more money is to come from that fund in the next round of contributions.
Of course, there has also been a great increase in sponsorship. It has been a success story. One could list the Clore and Sainsbury galleries, as well as the Tsui gallery—if that is how it is Pronounced—the Chinese gallery at the Victoria and Albert museum. I bow to any experts on Chinese pronunciation. There are other sponsorships of buildings and galleries which are less well known by name. Exhibitions are also sponsored. When I was on my Parliament and Industry Trust with Esso, it was sponsoring some exhibitions of how paintings came to be made—both Italian paintings and Impressionist paintings. Both exhibitions were held at the national gallery. It is great news that such companies contribute to our arts heritage in that way.
We must always remind ourselves of the role of Government in funding and of the need for it. We do not have our resident anti-funder in this debate. However, this is a moment to remind ourselves of one or two areas in which funding is right and should be adhered to. I think especially of the role of funding in enabling our racial minorities to see their ethnic background, history and culture described and laid out in exhibition form. It is good for them to be able to see and understand their culture, and it is good for the nation as a whole to understand the cultures of people living in our midst. We are a multi-ethnic society, so it is helpful for the cohesion of our society if we see and understand the backgrounds of our component parts.
Another reason for the Government role in funding is the need to understand the aesthetics of our environment. If we can educate our young people in the aesthetics of the environment, we shall have a society that begins to put the right pressures on our architects and planners. We might


then be able to move away from the too frequent power of the believers in utilitarianism and social collectivism, and return to the priority of a more aesthetic environment. That requires education and the ability to have aesthetic matters set out in visible form in our galleries and museums. We should keep referring to the fact that the arts need the involvement of the Government as nurturer, encourager and promoter of high standards and popular involvement, but not as the piper-payer who calls the tune, and not in such a way that the arts become a wholly owned subsidiary of Government.
We should encourage the arts to lobby. That may seem an odd thing to say, but I believe that this place is woefully lacking in understanding of the arts, which is partly the fault of the arts. The more that we can persuade people involved in the arts to ensure that they keep close to Members of Parliament, the more Members of Parliament will understand the needs of the arts and place them appropriately in their list of priorities for public funding.
This week, of all weeks, we can remind the Treasury of the income that comes from the arts, from overseas earnings and from areas that the Treasury does not recall as being part of the benefits from the arts. Tax comes from the taxi fares and from the restaurants that cater for people who come to this country and attend arts events. They spend not only in the theatre, the gallery or the museum, but outside. Much consequential revenue comes in to the Inland Revenue, which is part of the benefit of the arts to the Exchequer. The Chancellor recognises arts as an ally and a friend. If he wants to repay that confidence, he should examine the subject of taxes on the arts. If taxes were removed from the arts, there might be slightly less need to go to the Treasury for yet more funding. One can fund the arts by removing burdens as well as by positive funding.
One of the many controversies is the question of admission charges to our national galleries and museums. I do not take a strong line either way on that. The Government are right to say that there is and will be no compulsion. There are dangers in charges if they risk deterring people, especially young people, from going regularly to galleries and museums.
On the other hand, the Louvre, the Hermitage and the Brado all benefit from charges. Statistics for the museum of the moving image show that charges do not deter, whereas at the natural history museum they may. Where there has been an impact, it is often a short-term dip from which the museum recovers, as happened at the national maritime museum. The figures are inconclusive. All I say is that we should consider the matter carefully. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that, where charges are made, they should not be taken into account in the Government's allocation of funding. That can be shown if one continues with three-year funding, because that is a sufficient period for it to be obvious if there is a change as a result of particularly successful fund raising.
Having said that, I hope that we will persuade our museums and galleries to look for ways of making people open their purses once they are in, whether or not they have been charged an entrance fee. I also hope that we can persuade our museums and galleries to open when the public wish to visit them, particularly families with children, which is on bank holidays and at weekends, just

when the museum may be under pressure from unions not to open. They must be told that they have to open, because that is part of their duty to the public.
I hope that we can go on pressing our museums and galleries to make themselves available to people with disabilities. There have already been great achievements in that area, but we still need to ensure that doors are wide enough and that there are ramps and lifts and so on. Then we need to make sure that wherever possible exhibits are made available to people such as the partially sighted by allowing them to touch them and by providing Braille notices. People with disabilities should have exactly the same opportunities as the rest of us within their own personal limits to benefit from our great collections.
I hope that we can persuade our galleries and museums to look into their cellars and to bring out items which do not often see the light of a display case and, where appropriate and possible, to send exhibits on tour and out on loan. In that context, I welcome the national indemnity scheme. It now covers some 15,000 items a year, saving museums some £5 million a year in insurance premiums. That is good, and I hope that it can be extended, because part of their duty should be to take their treasures, the lesser-known ones as well, out and about. I hope that we will encourage shops and other commercial possibilities inside museums. Trading income has quadrupled in the past four years or so.
The Royal Air Force museum at Hendon is a national museum, which, as my right hon. Friend will know, the Ministry of Defence controls. I hope that he will ask the Ministry of Defence to bring that museum into line with the rest of the museum world in three ways. First, the museum should have the right to spend its earned income. Secondly, it should have a purchase grant rather than having—as it does at the moment unlike almost every other museum—to put forward items that it wants to purchase before it gets a grant. Thirdly, it is high time the Ministry of Defence handed over the museum and vested it in trustees. All those recommendations have been made by the Museums and Galleries Commission, but nothing seems to have happened yet. It is not my right hon. Friend's responsibility, but I hope that he will put pressure on the Ministry of Defence to bring that about.
Earlier tonight, we debated lotteries. I shall not repeat what has already been said. I simply ask my right hon. Friend to, join my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) in supporting a lottery and take the case, no doubt privately, to the Treasury and suggest that that would be a good way of attracting additional voluntary contributions for the arts from the members of the public in lieu of taxation. That would be a signal benefit.
The vision of Derbyshire county council comes to mind when I think of disposal. I hope that it is ashamed of its appalling policy of selling its assets and collections purely to make a political point. I do not believe that the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, Central or for Ashfield will support that. No sane person who believes in the worth of our great collections would support what that council is doing, and I suggest that the law needs tightening. Our fairly tight laws on selling national collections should surely apply locally.
I hope that we shall encourage our museums to get together, where appropriate, to prevent duplication. The science museum, the imperial war museum and the Royal Air Force museum all collect aircraft, whereas sensible arrangements are made between the Victoria and Albert


museum and the Tate gallery: the V and A limits its sculpture collection to pre-1920 and the Tate covers the period thereafter. That is a sensible way of ensuring that collections do not compete unnecessarily.
One of the targets of my right hon. Friend the Minister is to get buildings in good order for the millenium. Ove Arup is conducting a survey into the fabric of our national museum buildings. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can say when we might expect some results from that.
If we can get buildings in good order, I hope we shall consider endowment funding so that we can give a generous capital sum, equivalent and more to the present rate of annual funding, to some of our institutions, which would allow them to plan ahead. It would give them the Wandsworth factor—a spending assessment allocated for a period of years to come on which it, with good management, could make efficiency savings and spend the extra money on other things.
The Museum Training Institute of the Museums Association operates an excellent training scheme, and I hope that it will report on its achievements. I also hope that it will consider increasing training for regional museum staff from national museum resources.
I have urged my right hon. Friend for more and have given him much credit for what he has done, but I make three final pleas. The first is that we consider specific grant funding for the arts, down to local government. I know that that is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, but it is a message for him to pass on. Secondly, the BBC, ITV and the satellite companies—one thinks of the Sunday arts programmes on the old BSB Marcopolo channel—are good at portraying the arts, but they have not done museums and galleries proud, and they could do more to popularise those splendid national institutions.
Architecture does not yet have a national museum. The Royal Institute of British Architects has a gallery, but there is no national museum of architecture. I must declare an interest, in that my daughter is a student of architecture. Perhaps her work will one day qualify for inclusion in such a museum. Battersea power station in my constituency might be an appropriate building to house that museum. I hope that my right hon. Friend will pursue with vigour the idea of a museum of architecture.
The Museums and Galleries Commission said in its report:
The national museums are a magnificent inheritance, held in trust for the future; they are a national and international asset of unrivalled quality and also a significant economic asset.
That is right. It is also right that Members of Parliament are the trustees of those assets on behalf of our children and our children's children. We have a duty to ensure that they flourish. We also have a duty to ensure that our national museums fulfil their duty, set down by the Museums and Galleries Commission, to promote public understanding and enjoyment. If we combine those two purposes, the galleries and museums will be doing their job, and we shall be doing ours.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) on his good fortune in securing this debate and on his good

sense in selecting this subject for debate. Once again, he showed that he has a real knowledge and understanding of and an enthusiasm for the arts. I agree and sympathise with much that he said. I was particularly glad that he mentioned the needs of architecture, a subject to which I shall return. I suspect that the Minister is also grateful for this excellent opportunity to present to the House his policy on museums, something that until now he has been unable to do.
The Minister's inheritance is very interesting. It is a mixed inheritance, but much of it is extremely good. We have a superb range of museums that rightly enjoy an enormous international reputation, due to the quality of their curators. They are a match for anyone in the world, and they are admired and respected throughout the world for the scholarship, range and quality of the collections. Our reputation in international circles is growing, due to the quality of our exhibitions.
During the last few years, some of our national museums have been restored to their former greatness. Alfred Waterhouse's natural history museum has been restored to its original form and colour. When I was a child, I regarded it as a black, frightening and rather depressing building. It is now a joy to see the original pastel colours of the brick, which enable us to appreciate a great piece of 19th-century architecture.
Compared with 10 years ago, the number of people visiting our national museums has increased. The Tate in the North and the national museum of photography, film and television in Bradford are most welcome developments.
Given that the Minister has inherited a collection of national museums of such range and quality, that should offer him the basis for exciting expansion. Unfortunately, over the past few years the Government have tended to see it as an excuse for neglect. Our national museums are in an appalling state of repair. I differed from the hon. Member for Battersea when he seemed to say that the Government's record on buildings was good. It is a disgrace.
The hon. Gentleman should know from talking to any of the directors of the national museums—the Tate, the Victoria and Albert and others—that the money needed runs into millions of pounds. The Tate identifies its need as £27 million or more. The V and A estimates that it needs £100 million just to put the building right. The Government have been in office now for 12 years, and the fact that they have allowed this state of affairs to develop is not to their credit.
The hon. Member for Battersea recognised the Government's poor record on acquisition funds, many of which have been frozen for seven years. It is self-destructive to deny museums the ability to keep their collections up to date and to turn them into living organisms rather than just historic collections.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to misunderstand the problem of staffing and core funding of museums. He said that 80 per cent. of costs were staff-related. Because of the squeeze on museums' funding, museums such as the Victoria and Albert are finding that almost 100 per cent. of their grant in aid from the Office of Arts and Libraries goes on staffing costs. That is why staff numbers have been cut. There are unfilled vacancies in the British museum and the natural history museum. Posts in the museum of London have been terminated——

Mr.Bowis: I was thinking of the £189 million that has been allocated for buildings for the next three years. As for staffing, I echoed the recommendation of the Museums and Galleries Commission to the effect that staff pay was unfairly tied to civil service pay rates. The commission made a plea that the system should be loosened up, although it understood the difficulties that that might cause. I accept, however, that a high proportion of running costs are staff-related

Mr. Fisher: The fabric of museums, acquisition funds and staff costs all present the Government and the country with a problem. Unfilled posts affect the services that museums can provide—in scholarship, in skills and in the management of their collections. It is because these elements of our great museums are under such pressure due to inadequate core funding that morale in many of them—I instance the natural history museum—is at such a low ebb.
The Minister's challenge is to put all this right. He will not have many weeks or months in which to do so, but he can at least make a start by putting right the financial neglect that is the legacy of his predecessors in office. The real problem has been—I hope that the Minister will discuss this—the fact that the Government have not had a museums policy. Rather, they have a hands-off financial policy that restricts public expenditure wherever possible, and passes on responsibility to others.
The Government claim that it is up to the trustees whether they charge for admission. The hon. Member for Battersea fell into that trap, when he said that there was no compulsion to charge, as though museums were looking for opportunities to charge. I challenge him to find a single director of a national museum who says that charging improves the quality of his museums, and that, no matter how well the Government fund it, he wants to charge for admission because it enriches its cultural, educational and scholastic skills. Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that that is not so. Trustees of museums such as the science museum and the natural history museum have had to charge because they have had no other option. Inadequate Government funding is an implicit compulsion, and it is disingenuous to suggest anything else.
It is not good enough for the Government to pass on responsibility to the trustees and say that they have nothing to do with what goes on. They should accept responsibility for the core funding of our national museums, and not leave it all to sponsors. There are some good sponsors. For example, British Petroleum has done magnificent work in helping with the re-hang of the Tate. Nor is it good enough to leave it to earning income through shops. That does not address the scale of the capital and revenue needs of the national museums.
The Government's problem is that they have not formed a coherent view, because they do not appear to have a cultural view and valuation of museums or an educational view and valuation of museums. If they do have one, it is at odds with that of the Department of Education and Science. The hon. Member for Battersea will remember, because he served on the Committee that examined the Bill, that the Education Reform Act 1988 put a squeeze on school visits, and that has damaged museums.
The science museum does excellent work. Its education department has a superb and imaginative programme and

7,000 schools visit every year, but organised museum visits by schools are in decline because of the Government's education policies. I fear that the local management of schools will make that more rather than less acute. If the Government do not understand how crucial are museums for the educational future of our children and our country, they are misunderstanding the role of museums.
It is curious that the Government—who, to their credit, are saying through the GCSE syllabus and the national curriculum that children should have hands-on experience in science, history and the social sciences and go to prime resources to see the objects about which they are learning—are also perversely initiating policies that reduce the number of school visits and are so reducing the finances of national museums that they cannot expand their education departments to take the opportunities that those education policies are opening up.
What is most perverse is not that the Government do not have a cultural or educational perspective of museums but that they do not have an economic policy for them. One would have thought that this Government—the great proponents of the free market—would at least understand the economic impact of museums. The Policy Studies Institute and others have done plenty of work in this sector. Cities such as Bradford demonstrated in a condensed and clear form what an enormous contribution—not just through tourism but generally—the museums of this country make to economic life and employment.
One would have thought that that would commend itself to the Government and the Minister, and allow him to make a positive case for expansion in investment in museums, but that does not seem to be the case. The Government do not understand their own free market economic case. That may not be anything like as important as the cultural case, but it is still a potent argument, and one that the Minister's predecessors have not deployed sufficiently or effectively, because investment in museums has not increased as it should.
I ask the Minister to examine the opportunities that have opened up for the Government and for whomever is in government in the 1990s. He could make a start. I am sure that he has visited Glasgow, a city which has invested substantially in museums, including the Burrell, Kelvingrove and the People's Palace. The city has a coherent cultural, educational and economic view. It has deemed it worth while to put a large proportion of ratepayers' money into its museums and has changed the image and reputation of the city as a result, or substantially so. If the Government had had the same positive and imaginative approach towards the national museums that Glasgow has had to its city museums, the cultural reputation of the United Kingdom would be very different, and much higher.
Perhaps the Minister should travel a little, and not only to Glasgow. He should visit Paris, for example. I am sure that he would enjoy the visit enormously. The French Government have grasped the opportunities that were available in the 1980s for national museums. They have opened up the old Gare d'Orsay into the Musée d'Orsay. They have opened a huge new science museum at La Villette, which involved vast investment. They have created the Pompidou centre, which is visited by 7·5 million a year. To take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Battersea about architecture, they have opened in the Asenal a huge centre that is effectively a forum arid museum for study and for focusing debate on architecture.
They have contributed considerably to greater interest and enthusiasm in public architecture, and in its quality too. The private sector is included, as well as the public sector.
The Minister would enjoy visiting the museums and centres to which I have referred. I believe that he would return inspired. If he takes a trip to Paris, he should extend his journey by travelling to Frankfurt. There he would see the most spectacular example of a city where the commitment to expanding its cultural sector and its museums is reflected in almost every street. Frankfurt has an extremely good architectural museum. It has commissioned new architects such as Richard Meier to create new museums such as the kunstandwerk museum and the museum of ethnology, which will open in 1992. There is Hans Hollem's museum of modern art and Unger's ikonmuseum. The Rothschild mansion has been converted into the Judisches museum. There is the museum of antique sculpture and Josef Kleihner's museum of pre and early history. If the Minister visited Frankfurt, he would see a city that has a pride in its past and a confidence in its future. It has invested in museums and is reaping the benefit in the number of visitors that it is attracting. The museum sector is making an important contribution to the identity and cohesion of the city.
We have a much stronger starting base in our national museums. If only we had a Government with the confidence to invest, we could grasp the opportunities that are available to us. When we compare what has happened in Paris over the past 10 years and what is happening in Frankfurt with the national museums in London, we see that our record is a bleak one. The only two substantial museums that have opened in the past few years in London have been the design museum and the museum of the moving image. Neither has received a penny from public funding.
The design museum is preparing plans and an argument—this is, if it is to develop and fulfil its enormously exciting potential—for public investment. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic. Sir Terence Conlan and the other trustees who have set up the museum have created something in which we as a society should invest. They have given us the opportunity, and we should grasp it. Similarly, if we are ever to revive our film industry, the museum of the moving image must be recognised as worthy of public support.
There is something for the Minister to go at as well. He has a superb base to start with, but he also has a great deal of work to do to recover the lost ground which has been allowed to slide away in the last 12 years in buildings, in the frozen nature of acquisitions and in the crisis in staffing.
The Minister has probably only a few weeks left in office. Perhaps he could start on that agenda now and enjoy himself by going to Paris and Frankfurt. He could come back inspired to make a better stab at it in future.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): We have had a short, entertaining and useful debate. I am flattered that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) wishes me to spend, as he put it, my last few weeks as Arts Minister touring Frankfurt and Paris. Perhaps

there is malign intent. Perhaps he feels that if I did that he would have a greater chance of taking my job than would otherwise be likely.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) for arranging for us to have the debate, even at this unfriendly hour, and I thank him for his elegant and well-informed words on museums and galleries. He quoted Walter de la Mare in regard to the sense almost of timelessness that one has when debating at 2 o'clock in the morning. That sense of timelessness is perhaps appropriate to the subject of museums. As he was quoting Walter de la Mare, I was thinking of the lines of Andrew Marvell in introduction to his short poem, "To His Coy Mistress":

"Had we but world enough, and time,
This coyness, Lady, were no crime
We would sit down, and think which way
To walk, and pass our long love's day.
That is a good way to consider how to fill a debate at 2 o'clock in the morning. At that moment we were disturbed by the arrival of the hon: Member for Asfield (Mr. Haynes)—I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, but in no sense could the word "coy" ever be applied to the hon. Gentlemen, so my thoughts of Andrew Marvell disappeared quickly

Mr. Fisher: The Minister should reconsider his incitement to the House to go along the lines of Andrew Marvell. He will know that the rest of the poem is about fornication, or seduction leading to fornication. I am not sure that the House should indulge in that poem, if that is what he meant

Mr. Renton: On the other hand, in his closing words, the hon. Gentleman, was trying to remind me of the refrain in that poem:
But at my back I always hear Time's winged chariot hurrying near.
That is precisely why he was telling me to go off to Frankfurt rather quickly.
In the course of yesterday, which already seems a long time ago, I had the opportunity to visit two museums. During both visits I was reminded of some of the points that my hon. Friend the Minister for Battersea has made, but also of our efficacy in dealing with some of the problems about which he spoke. Between my visits to the two museums, I had a short time at the Dulwich art gallery which is well known to my hon. Friend the Minister for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden), who was kind enough to be with us during this debate.
The first museum which I visited yesterday was the Horniman. I was there for the opening of the exhibition devoted to Yoruba, a celebration of African art. That exhibition is a remarkable departure for the Horniman. It is unlike the museum's normal ethnographic exhibitions and its well-known exhibition of musical instruments. It shows great enterprise. It will appeal to many people, and especially to the Afro-Caribbeans who live in the area; they will have the opportunity to see an important display of past and contemporary African, and particularly Nigerian, art.
More specifically, I was shown by the director of the museum the lift that is being installed for the disabled so that it will be easier for them to visit the aquarium when it re-opens later this year. The museum has spent quite a lot of money on renovating it. Some of the money was from an improvement grant, jointly funded by ourselves and the Wolfson charities.
The other museum that I visited in the course of the last 24 hours was the Soane museum in Lincoln's Inn, which is receiving substantial repairs to its roof, funded by the MEPC property company and my office—each contributing £.1 million over five years. That work will, among other things, enable the antiquities collected by Sir John Soane to be restored to his study, and for part of the museum's huge collection of architectural prints by Soane and Adam to be viewed by tourists and other visitors in a manner not previously possible.
At both those small but important museums, we are undertaking—with the help of sponsorship, private patrons, or charities such as the Wolfson foundation—the kind of improvements mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, enabling collections to be better displayed, and allowing the disabled an opportunity to enjoy them more easily.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his place, and I am sure that the Whip on the bench will convey to him the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea about the RAF museum at Hendon.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, not surprisingly, made a certain amount of play about lack of museum funding, to which I shall refer shortly. More importantly, he accused the Government of a lack of policy and having no sense of vision. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to a recent change of outlook. There might have been some measure of truth four or five years ago in the observation of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. In the mid-1980s, the museum world suffered a crisis of confidence, which coincided with lengthy consideration by my distinguished predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr Luce), of whether to introduce museum admission charges.
My right hon. Friend reached the conclusion that the decision should be left to the museums' individual management, trustees, or boards of director. It is official Labour party policy not to continue with charging. Setting aside the question of undermining the philosophy behind that policy, what does the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central suggest should be done, for example, in the case of the museum of the moving image, which was specifically introduced as a museum that charged admission, and which intends to meet its expenses as a result? Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that its costs should be met entirely from public funds? If so, that would be a foolish reversal of the policy adopted by that extremely successful museum. The hon. Gentleman seems anxious to get to his feet to tell the House that Labour intends to place yet another burden on the taxpayer, so I will allow him time to do so

Mr. Fisher: The Minister has not been long in post, but he ought to have read his background briefing. Our criticism of charging for admission relates to public museums, for which the state has a responsibility. No one disputes the right of independent museums throughout the country, such as the museum of the moving image, which are not part of that network, to make admission charges. We argue only against charging at nationally funded museums for which the public have a responsibility, and in respect of which the Government have a duty to widen

access, not diminish it. It is the decline in access that is the consequence of the imposition of admission charges that we so deplore

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is playing with words. The museum of the moving image is part of the south bank centre

Mr. Fisher: It is independently funded and does not receive public money

Mr. Renton: The south bank centre is not totally privately funded. It gets a large part of its funds from the Government, from the Office of Arts and Libraries, from my Department, and there is that important space available which, if it were not used for a charging museum, could be used for something else.
However, I do not think that that is a proper line for us to pursue at the moment. As with so many issues, I do not think that the Labour party has worked out its policy clearly on this.
The directors of both the science museum and the natural history museum—the two most evident museums which decided, with their trustees, to introduce charges—pointed out to me, in discussions that I have had with them since becoming Minister for the Arts, the improvements in service and display that have derived from charging in their establishments. They do not think that charging is a backward step. They reckon that, for example, it has prompted them to provide much better services within the museum for their customers.
I do not think that the directors of those two museums would wish to recoil and depart from the charging principle. Charging gives them financial flexibilities, which derive from self-engendered funding because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea asked, the moneys that they bring in from charging are not deducted from their three-year funding but are in addition and they have flexibility as to how they are used.
As regards the broader point, the decisions that flowed from charging brought about the new atmosphere—the change in outlook to which my hon. Friend referred. Now, we have a far greater sense of confidence in many of our national museums—a sense of direction, or knowledge in where they are trying to go to—than was the case five years ago. We see that in the exhibitions and the displays that those museums are putting on.
Much publicity has been given to the new ecology gallery at the natural history museum. It has been described in exciting terms:
One end of this 50 yard long chasm is a life-size replica of a patch of rain forest, made of plastic. At the other, mirrors and a square-shaped wall of 20 video screens are combined to give the illusion of a huge animated hemisphere. The on-screen images trace the hydrological cycle of rainfall, evaporation and cloud formation.
What is the purpose of that? It is to show off in the natural history museum the basic history of ecology in a manner that is exciting and scientifically correct, but will stimulate interest among families and children.
It is that evolution towards exciting, often "hands-on", displays at the natural history museum, the science museum, the imperial war museum—with their recently opened "experiences" which go by the names of Blitz and Trench—and increasingly at the national maritime museum, and the determination to show off their collections in a manner that the public will find attractive


and interesting, but that will not detract from experts' interest, that is giving a new sense of confidence and determination to so many of our national museums.
They are not all there yet. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. Some of our major museums are still in some doubts as to the direction in which they should go, and have difficulty in making the decisions as to how they can both win over the family with interesting exhibitions, yet keep the interest of the experts who have used access to their museums for so long.
By and large, however, the pattern is clear now and there is a far greater sense of determination in our national museums—a sense of where they want to go—which is reflected in the attendance figures. Last year, the estimate for attendance at national museums and galleries—for which I am responsible—was more than 20 million, 5·7 per cent. up on the year before. I believe that that trend will continue, and that more and more people will visit the museums and galleries as they solve the problems with which they were faced in the 1980s.
An important trend, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, is represented by the decision of my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham—to improve training, through the Museums Training Institute, for all who work in museums. In January 1989, my right hon. Friend announced the establishment of the institute, which would be responsible for the strategic development of training by establishing standards, validating courses, and providing training in selected areas. I consider that an important priority, which is emphasised by our commitment to provide significant support for the institute's activities—£400,000 in the current financial year.
Although the institute has not been going for long, it has already made significant achievements. It has been accorded official status as the lead body for the museums and heritage industry; it has established a steering committee that will develop a standards framework; and it is establishing 12 functional groups that will deal with the provision of training in a number of important areas such as collections and management, exhibition design, fund-raising and sponsorship, technical work, research, conservation, education and retail sales.
The aim is to ensure that anyone who enters the museum service—whether at the young age of 16, or later in life—not only has the opportunity to be trained upwards, so that he can progress from being, say, an attendant to becoming a museum director or curator, but has a certificate to give him the chance of a professional qualification that will give him better job security, or make it easier for him to transfer from one museum to another. That aspect has been neglected in the past, but I think that our aim is important and that even Opposition Members will wish it success.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea said some kind words about the increase in our funding of museums and galleries, which—inevitably—were contradicted immediately by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I should not have expected anything else, but I remind hon. Members that, in the financial year that we are entering, our grant in aid for the national museums and galleries will increase by 8·5 per cent., from £99 million to £107 million.
Building and maintenance are a problem. That stems from the fact that so many of our great museums and galleries were built at the end of the Victorian age. The Victoria and Albert museum, for instance, was not very well built. Its construction involved experimentation with new materials. Because it was regarded as a museum for manufactures, it was considered appropriate to try out, for example, new types of concrete which were not always successful. Now, however, we are well aware of the problems of building and maintenance, which is why we are allocating £59 million for that purpose in the year ahead. That represents an increase of 115 per cent., after inflation, since 1979–80, when we came into office. Over the next three years, the allocation will be more than £189 million.
It was to review and assess the total building and renovation needs of our museums and galleries that, soon after taking up my post, I appointed Arup Research and Development. It is a problem because of the age of the buildings involved, and it is for that reason that the advice to be given to me Arup, who will report by the end of the summer, will be very useful indeed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) also asked me whether I proposed to continue to tie the wages and salary conditions of museum staff to civil service grades. This is an area in which I keep an open mind; I have not yet reached final decisions on the future pay regime for national museums and galleries staff. I have no immediate intention of making changes. There is now a wide range of pay and personnel flexibilities, as my hon. Friend will know, available within the civil service arrangements. It is nevertheless an area where it is worth keeping an open mind, always remembering the possibility that there should be changes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea also asked me about disposals from collections. He will know, because he is very much an expert in this area, that disposal of items from national museum and gallery collections is a matter for the trustees of the institutions concerned; they must always consider whether it is within the constraints of their governing legislation. We would all feel that benefactors of museums and galleries should be confident that their wishes will be treated with respect by the institution concerned. If there is any increasing threat that gifts and collections are likely to be disposed of, I can imagine nothing that would make it more certain that a particular museum did not receive further gifts; donations to it would totally dry up.
It is against that background that I, like my hon. Friend, am very worried to note that Derbyshire county council has recently sent 17 works from its museum service to be auctioned. This will cause a great deal of distress to many people in Derbyshire. I have no statutory power to prevent that, but it would be wholly contradictory to the Museums Association code of practice if the proceeds from the disposal of those items were used for any purpose other than the purchase of additional items.
I would add for the future that, if this were to continue to happen, and if the Derbyshire museums were registered—as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea will know, we are proceeding with registering all museums through the Museums and Galleries Commission—but then disposed of items in this manner, they would be de-registered and thus not be eligible for any of the moneys or grants available through the Museums and Galleries


Commission, either from my office or from the Wolfson charities. That would be a considerable penalty and inhibition for them.

Mr. Bowis: I wonder, in that case, whether that should be made clear to all such institutions which may wish to benefit from registration in the future?

Mr. Renton: That is an interesting point. If it is not already clear to them as they apply for registration with the Museums and Galleries Commission, I will make certain that it does become plain to them.
I very much agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea when he quoted the words of the Museums and Galleries Commission on our duty to ensure that the museums flourished. I note that, in the recent booklet put out by the Area Museums Council, the Museums and Galleries Commission is quoted as saying:
In the present boom in museum popularity"—
I remind the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central of those words—
two things are vital, the setting of standards and achieving the most with the least.
I do not know that I would have used the words "the most with the least", but I think that museums are now very much more aware of giving the public enjoyment combined with value for money, and that both are perfectly correct aims for them to try to achieve.
In my view, three particular duties fall on the museums—to maintain the standards of education, to show off their collections to the best possible advantage, and to provide opportunities for new enjoyment for family and recreational interest. While I am Minister for the Arts, I shall certainly seek to ensure that the museums for which I am responsible pursue these policies.

Black Soldiers

Ms. Diane Abbott: For many months, the nation's imagination has been focused on its armed services. Ever since the outbreak of hostilities in the Gulf, on every news bulletin there has been news film of our troops. As those troops return home from the Gulf, it seems an appropriate time to examine the position of black people in the armed services.
If it is indeed sweet and fitting to die for one's country, there can be no doubt that it is fitting for all our soldiers to be treated equally, both in recruitment and in their career prospects once they are in the armed services. I question whether that is actually the case. The history of black people serving in Britain's armed services goes back a long time. We do not hear much about it in the official history of world war two, but as many as 8,000 West Indians served in the Royal Air Force. Each year, I attend the West Indian ex-service men's Remembrance day service, where we remember the West Indians who died in the service of this country. Of course, the Indian army also played an important role in defeating the Germans and the Japanese.
The current evidence suggests that, far from being treated equally, black people in the armed services are under-represented. There are recurrent and tragic cases of brutal racial assault on black soldiers, which with monotonous regularity force them to leave the armed services. There is also evidence that black people have been kept out of certain regiments.
On the point about under-representation, although black involvement in the armed services has a long history—black air crew, black soldiers, black munitions workers and black forestry workers, who served in this country during the war—sadly, it has always been one of colour bar and segregation. When the war broke out in 1939, black students from Oxford, Cambridge and Newcastle who went to join the officer training corps found themselves banned. In the end, despite much agitation and pressure from the Colonial Office, only a handful of black men gained admission.
As late as 1943, the Royal Navy recruiting regulations stated:
Black and coloured boys and any person in whom there is evidence of such parentage are absolutely ineligible for entry unless with special sanction of the Admiralty.
That theme ran through the recruitment attitude, both official and unofficial, of the armed services throughout the war.
For years during the 1960s there was a very strict quota limiting the number of black recruits. At the beginning of the 1960s it was 2 per cent., and towards the end it was 4 per cent. Throughout the 1960s, there were some regiments that would not accept any black recruits. That was revealed in a War Office memorandum that was published in newspapers during that decade. The regiments that would officially accept no black recruits include the Household Cavalry, the foot guards, the Highland regiments, the Lowland regiments, the Royal Military police, the intelligence corps and the physical training corps. There was an official quota, and black people were officially excluded from certain regiments.
All that was legally swept away by the Race Relations Act 1968, but I suggest that that history of official segregation and exclusion still casts its shadow over the policies and practices of the armed services today.
When applicants were monitored in 1987, MOD figures showed that black people comprised only 1·6 per cent. of the applicants when black people of the particular age range applying to join the armed services constituted 5·7 per cent. of the population. There is a much lower application rate among young black men and women. Worse, there is a much lower success rate.
There is a perception, which no one has been able to prove one way or the other, that once black people get into the armed services, their chances of promotion are not good. In that regard, I want to quote Scotty Muir, an ex-bugler. He left the armed services because he was disillusioned. He said:
I feel strongly about people not getting promoted because of their colour. You can go to Northern Ireland and get killed. You can do just about everything else, but you can't get promoted.
Recent research that the MOD commissioned from Peat, Marwick, McLintock revealed that young black people are unwilling to apply to join the armed services because they believe that they would encounter racism. That leads me to my other point, about the recurrent incidents of brutal racist violence meted out to young black people who join the armed services.
The case of Stephen Anderson was in the courts last year. He joined the Devon and Dorset Regiment in 1983, and he was the only black soldier in his platoon. For that he suffered continued abuse. One night he was pulled from his bed at 1.30 am, beaten up and called a nigger. The beatings went on for two years and he finally suffered a nervous breakdown. He had to go on a hunger strike before any action was taken against his tormentors.
To give the House an idea of the closing ranks around that kind of brutality, I want to refer to a television programme entitled "Trooping the Colour" which was broadcast in 1989. A white ex-machine gunner was interviewed on the programme. Preferring to remain anonymous, he described how he had, by chance, seen a particularly brutal assault on a black soldier who received a cracked jaw and ribs and was covered in blood. He was rushed to hospital.
The machine gunner decided to report the soldiers who had carried out the attack to the appropriate authorities, partly to protect himself and his friends—to prevent them from being wrongly accused—and partly because he genuinely believed that that was the right thing to do. For doing that he had, in today's modern Army, to put up with months—which turned into years—of bullying. He was hissed and threatened and in the end he had to leave the Army.
I have spoken to members of the West Indian Ex-Servicemen's Association who have left the British Army in recent years. They say that such brutality is not uncommon, and inevitably young men leave the Army without any redress and with their dreams of serving their country in uniform shattered.
In evidence to the Select Committee on Defence when it examined the matter in 1987, the then Secretary of State for Defence struck a note of quite extraordinary pomposity and complacency:

Once people are in the Services, as far as we are concerned they are British service men and we are no longer interested in their racial background.
That is a travesty of the truth. The service men who assault people like Stephen Anderson are very interested in racial background. The service men who abuse black young service men, make their lives a misery and drive them out of the armed services are very interested in racial background. Defence Ministers would do young black soldiers a great service if they left behind that kind of hypocrisy and fraudulent colour blindness and instead took seriously the brutality that is being meted out to young black soldiers in the armed services.
Now I come to the exclusion of black soldiers from certain regiments. Newspaper reports show that in 1986 the heir to the throne, Prince Charles, queried the absence of any black guardsmen. The attitude of the Guards on the matter is probably best expressed in a quote that I found in The Daily Telegraph from an anonymous guardsman. He said of the possibility of black guardsmen:
It doesn't look right; you don't know where the bearskin ends and the face begins.
Young black men were officially kept out of the Household Cavalry, the foot guards and the Highland and Lowland brigades until 1968. It is hard not to suspect that that tradition, although technically and legally a thing of the past, remains in the memory of the people currently responsible for recruiting guardsmen.
Many of the people who are listening or will read this debate will remember Guardsman Richard Stokes, who was one of the first black men, if not the first, to enter the Guards. Who can forget the pictures of him in the newspapers in his uniform, full of pride with his white adoptive parents on one side and his black mother who gave him up for adoption when he was very small on the other? It ought to have been the culmination of his hopes and the beginning of a career that would do credit to him, his family and the British armed forces.
But what happened to Richard Stokes, who entered the armed services at 17 full of innocence and high hopes, only wanting to join what he regarded as a top regiment, was a tragedy. Less than three years after the pictures of him joining the Guards were all over the newspapers he left the Guards in disillusion. He had had to endure the unendurable—Nazi jibes, knife threats, racist taunts. He would enter the canteen and his colleagues would bang their plates all at the same time and make monkey noises. Colleagues of his have described the sustained humiliation and threats of violence that he had to endure throughout what must have seemed three long years in the Guards.
Another young black man who tried to join the Guards was one Khalil Janjua. He again had the same experience. He suffered harassment. He found excrement in his bed. In the end, he could not take the abuse, stress and threats. He ended his Army career waiting on tables. Mike Hermanis was driven out of the Welsh Gaurds by the same combination of abuse and violence. What was official policy until 1968 is still unofficial policy now. Despite everything that Prince Charles and others may hint and say, it is the view of the Guards that that there is no place in the regiment for a black soldier.
I must say at this point, having framed this speech very much in the context of the profile that our armed services have had in the past months, that what happens in the British armed services compares unfavourably with the United States system. Who can imagine the British system


producing a Colin Powell, who is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the American armed services? Yet when the Defence Select Committee put to the then Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), that it might just be possible that the British armed services would benefit from studying how the American armed services handled these matters, he was defensive and said time and again that he was
resolutely opposed to any such system.
British Defence Ministers seem absolutely certain that they have nothing to learn from the United States military system. But I would say that in those armed services at least it was shown that that man could rise to the top on merit. Who would deny that Colin Powell, in his direction of allied forces and in his presentation of the case to the media, rose to the top absolutely on merit? On the one hand, there is a system in which a black man can rise to the absolute top on absolute merit and, on the other, there is a system in which, regularly and systematically, appalling tales of racism and brutality leak out. Are Ministers really so certain that they have nothing to learn from the American armed services in this matter?
I have quoted the cases of ex-service men and I have referred to well-publicised incidents, some of which ended up as court cases. I am sure that the Minister will make the point that we do not know how many black service men are forced out of the military. We do not know how high they rise or the number of black service men in each regiment. We do not know for certain that they are being kept out of the Guards. We do not know, because the Ministry of Defence has resolutely refused to institute monitoring that would reveal such results.
In 1987, the Select Committee on Defence—not a radical organisation—pressed the idea that, at the very least, the Ministry of Defence should monitor recruitment by regiment so that we could know whether it was true or an assumption that certain regiments were trying to prevent young black men from joining. The Ministry of Defence has resolutely set its face against monitoring recruitment by regiment, or by cap badge as it is called, and against detailed monitoring that would reveal the exact career opportunities for our young black men in the armed services
Instead, we are asked to put our confidence in the protestations of Ministers that the British Army is colour blind. It was not colour blind to the young men whom I have mentioned who were forced out of the services, having had to endure in every case the years of taunts, of brutality and of threats.
Monitoring is the only way in which to prove that certain regiments do not discriminate, and the only way in which black young men, once they join the armed services, can experience fairness and equality, and have the same career chances as young white men. I am sorry to say—the Minister may find this unacceptable—that I am not prepared to put my faith in the well-meaning intentions of Ministers. I and the public want information on which to base our views.
When Ministers say, as the Minister may say tonight, that there are difficulties in monitoring, that it is not really acceptable and has no place in the Army, I must point out—the Select Committee report brought this out—that the Army practised monitoring throughout the 1960s to keep black people out. It kept racial records meticulously throughout the 1960s to ensure that the number of black people coming into the service did not exceed the quotas.
If the armed services practised monitoring in the 1960s to keep black people out, why is it so difficult for them to practise monitoring now to ensure that black people are given a fair chance?
The armed services remain alone among large, public sector employers such as the national health service and the civil service in not having a comprehensive ethnic monitoring system. I do not suggest that keeping figures and number crunching is all, but given the steady stream of distressing cases of brutal assaults on black soldiers and the hearsay evidence that black persons do not have the career chances in our services that white service men have, the way in which Ministers have set their face against proper monitoring by regiment and against comprehensive monitoring suggests complacency about the problem.
In 1944, talking about Britain's armed services, the Colonial Office said:
We must keep up the fiction of there being no colour bar.
Again in 1944, the War Office said:
British troops do not take kindly to being commanded by coloured officers. Further, the presence of coloured officers in a unit in peacetime is apt to be a source of embarrassment.
I put it to the Minister that the position now in practice is not much different from what it was 50 years ago. The notion that there is no colour bar in the armed services is a fiction, and the resistance in the armed services to troops being commanded by coloured officers is perhaps just as strong as it was 50 years ago.
May we have monitoring by Government in line with the 1987 report of the Select Committee on Defence, so that we can establish once and for all that certain regiments are not excluding black applicants? Can we monitor promotion systematically to demonstrate that black soldiers in the British Army have the same chance of promotion as white soldiers? We must learn from the American experience. The careers of Colin Powell and dozens of other black American soldiers suggest that the American armed services, perhaps alone among such institutions, have constructed a system in which black and white can compete in genuine equality.
Above all, I ask Ministers to stop pretending that racist violence does not happen in the Army. It is not horse play; it is not teasing. It results in people being hospitalised, and it has driven people in a steady flow out of the armed services.
We learned today that the Government intend to set up a royal commission on our criminal system. Racism experienced by black soldiers in the armed services is so great and reflects so poorly on our society that this is an issue which itself deserves a royal commission. The Ministry of Defence has been told many times what it should do, but it resists blatantly, and meanwhile the Stephen Andersons and dozens of other unknown victims are continuing to suffer.
If black soldiers are good enough to die for Britain, they are good enough to be treated fairly. The test of a society and the test of equality in a society is how its different groups are reflected in the society's institutions. The armed services are one of Britain's institutions; they are one of the pillars of British society. The reports of brutality and racism in the armed services, the blatant absence of black soldiers from some of our most distinguished and celebrated regiments, and the fixed unwillingness of the Ministry of Defence to look at practices in other countries are a blot on Britain's reputation for fairness and equality.
Among the thousands of soldiers who return from the Gulf will be many black soldiers who never thought when they were in the desert risking their lives that perhaps they should not be doing so because Britain was not their country because they were black. They are as British as anyone and I demand for them in the House this evening not special treatment, not positive discrimination, but equality; an equality which I believe, from what I have learnt and heard, and from my own researches, does not exist at this time for our black service men.
There is a sad and tragic history of segregation and racism in the British armed services. In the last years of the 20th century it is time finally to close that chapter.

Dr. John Reid: Despite the lateness of the hour, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) on raising this subject and giving us another opportunity to consider it.
The subject has been debated a number of times, which highlights its importance. It has been put well not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington but, previously, by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and, from the Front Bench, by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who has tried to highlight it in the past two years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that, in the past few months, quite naturally, her attention has been riveted on events in the Gulf. We are proud of the efficiency, discipline and prowess of our service men and women who served in the Gulf and of those who have been on active service for about 20 years in Northern Ireland but are sometimes forgotten in the drama of the Arabian peninsula.
When those young men and women risked their lives, no one asked their race, religion, creed or colour. War and the risk of death do not discriminate on grounds of creed or colour. As my hon. Friend said, tremendous interest and concern was expressed about the correctness of the Gulf tactics and strategy of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There was much less concern, in the drama of the moment, about the fact that he was black; that did not enter into the equation during that period of emergency and drama.
As in war, so it should be in peace, but, unfortunately, that has not always been true in the British Army. Tragically, the facts show that the problem, which I hope is recognised by the Government, remains. The Minister has spoken of recognising the problem, but it is obvious to any objective observer that, despite the efforts that have been made—Labour Members have some criticisms of the speed with which those efforts have been pursued—the ethnic composition of our armed forces does not reflect the ethnic composition of the population.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington reminded us of the long and proud history of black service men and women in the armed forces, and of the less than proud history of discrimination—official or otherwise—in the British armed forces. Tragically, although not officially, that discrimination still

exists. As my hon. Friend said, figures drawn from the labour force survey, which are well known, show that only 1·6 per cent. of applicants to all the armed services were from ethnic minorities. That represents less than one third of the proportionate make-up of the 15 to 24 age group from which one would normally expect applications to the armed forces.
The Government are aware of the figures and the problem. That awareness led to the commissioning of the Peat, Marwick, McLintock consultative document entitled "Ethnic Minority Recruitment to the Armed Services". I welcome that initiative, as did Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen at the time.
The report was published in response to a number of disturbing suspicions, but it raised other disturbing points. The most important and the most disturbing was the revelation that those from ethnic minorities were more, not less, likely to expect racial discrimination within the armed forces if they had already had some contact with the services. Expectation of discrimination by the ethnic minorities is therefore based not on fear of the unknown but on precisely the opposite. Expectation of discrimination on the part of ethnic minorities is heightened by familiarity rather than by ignorance of the practices of the armed forces.
Some idea of that experience is conveyed—admittedly in anecdotal fashion—in a recent book by Antony Beevor entitled "Inside the British Army." The author is not, to my knowledge, black, but it is worth repeating what he has to say. He served as an officer in the British Army for a considerable number of years. He has no particular axe to grind, and what he has to say about the issue may interest my hon. Friend:
Racial harassment is an equally vexed issue. The Army, which is trying hard to bring in more recruits from ethnic minorities, is deeply embarrassed and angered by the tabloid treatment of the subject: the spectacle of the Sun setting itself up as a champion of racial tolerance sticks in many throats.
There the author is referring to the sensationalised reports that always appear whenever cases of bullying or racial discrimination in the Army occur. He then said:
Yet senior officers do not like to admit how little can be done. Military life is likely to appeal to teenagers with skinhead prejudices, and one or two vitriolic characters are enough to stir up trouble against a black recruit. Once again, self-appointed guardians of the barrack-block flame think that to chase out blacks is to defend the honour of the regiment. They get away with it because the soldier's code against grassing is almost as strong as the underworld's, and because NCOs and officers often prefer not to acknowledge what is happening.
We do not have to agree with all those sentiments, particularly with what would no doubt be regarded as slanderous by many recruits about the skinhead tendencies. Nevertheless, when someone in the author's position goes out of his way to highlight the problem in a book about the British Army, it should be treated seriously.
Interestingly enough, the author goes on to give an example of something that parallels in a small way the fact referred to by my hon. Friend: that during times of emergency few people care to ask about a person's colour or creed:
In the Parachute Regiment or the Royal Marines, racial harassment is relatively rare, once again because entrants are judged much more by the way they bear up under the arduous selection procedures. Overt racism is also likely to occur less when there are already a number of coloured soldiers serving in the unit, mainly because other newcomers are not prey to a frightening isolation. If the Army is to send members of


ethnic minorities into the Guards, then it must not send in one token figure at a time, doomed to draw all the fire. (Although no figures are available, some officers are certain that the number of black soldiers has declined in the last decade. One Green Jackets officer estimated that nearly 10 per cent. of their soldiers were black in the 1970s). Apart from the Green Jackets and the Parachute Regiment, the only infantry regiments with a noticeable number are south-eastern and Midland regiments, nearly all in the Queen's Division.
That is anecdotal evidence, and one does not have to agree with every word in Beevor's book to accept that there is a continuing problem, especially in certain regiments. The Guards are the most continually referred to by objective analysts and by those who have first-hand experience of them.
The problem was most dramatically highlighted in November of last year, when a decision by the Army to deny a black soldier, Private Anderson, any compensation or redress after he had suffered racial abuse was quashed in the High Court. That was an important case, in that it established that the armed forces have no less a duty in cases of racial discrimination than has any other institution in civilian life. Indeed, they may have an even greater responsibility. The Anderson case signalled to members of ethnic minorities outside and inside the armed services that racial discrimination has no place in modern society or in the institutions established and maintained to protect and defend that society and its freedoms.
Some have argued that any institution that reflects society is bound to contain some people who suffer from the prejudices that—tragically—still exist in that society. That must not lessen the need for vigilance and prompt action against those who display such prejudices; because if those prejudices are allowed to grow and feed on themselves, they encourage a vicious circle which can only make the problem worse.
Every act of racial discrimination in the armed forces only encourages the perception of those forces—however wrong it may be—as institutions in which prejudice flourishes. Every strengthening of that perception decreases the likelihood of ethnic minority applications to enlist in the armed forces. In its turn, each decrease in enlistment serves only to isolate members of the ethnic communities already serving, and creates the conditions for further discrimination.
So the vicious circle continues, and we end up with the figures for 1988: only 1·7 per cent. of more than 50,000 applications for the Army came from the ethnic minorities. Only 1·5 per cent. of more than 17,000 applications for the Royal Air Force came from them; and only 1·4 per cent. of more than 21,000 applications to join the Royal Navy came from the same source.
Furthermore, the Minister must know that it is not only a matter of applications. Among the tiny proportion who applied at all, the rate of success in applications from the ethnic minorities was significantly lower—just over 19 per cent., as against more than 28 per cent. for white applications. This matter, which has already been brought to the Minister's attention, deserves further study. We hope that he will discuss it in this debate.
The Government have been unusually silent on a number of issues of late. The Minister has been asked several questions over the past 18 months. To be fair, the crisis, and latterly the hostilities, in the Golf may well have taken priority over those questions. That is perfectly understandable. However, as the Peat, Marwick, McLintock report made plain, the services must not only

do something about the problem: they must be seen to he doing something about fostering applications from and enlistment by the ethnic minorities.
That report is often referred to, so perhaps it is worth seeing that comment in its context and looking at some of the recommendations in the report. About its contention that the armed forces must be seen to be doing something, the report said:
With regard specifically to the ethnic minority community, it is the poor image of the Services on racial issues which is the single most important reason for low application rates. However, our research does suggest that there is scope to alter perceptions of the Services, particularly in relation to other employers. To achieve this change in perceptions the Services must be seen to be doing something. The external strategy must be complemented by a willingness to show the public what is being done in the internal strategy; recommended changes to internal procedures cannot be carried out behind closed doors—they must be seen to be believed.
It is important and urgent that that perception among ethnic minorities of the armed forces of the Crown is changed and changed rapidly, because if it is allowed to grow, it will inevitably become an insurmountable problem.
I have a parallel case, in which the circumstances are. I admit, different. It shows that, on one ethnic minority in one part of this kingdom, the pressure not to join the armed forces is even greater, often because it is backed by bullets. It is a tragedy that, whereas 20 per cent. of those in the Ulster Defence Regiment in the early 1970s were Roman Catholics, now only 3 per cent. are. That case is not a close parallel with the issue that we are debating, but I use it to show the vicious circle that is created if we allow to continue the perception that the armed forces tolerate or even foster within their ranks elements that perpetrate either racial harassment or racial discrimination and do not deal with it speedily and effectively.
The Peat, Marwick, McLintock report suggested a number of possible courses of action. First, for one group among the ethnic minorities—those for whom a career in the armed forces is not even a considered option—it suggested that the Government should consider changing perceptions of the services. It said:
Such an objection will be achieved by means of a long term image building strategy targeted at young people".
That does not mean a superficial glossy approach. It means that there must be positive thinking within the services, not only about the virtues of the recruitment, enlistment and promotion of members of the ethnic minorities but about how that might be presented in a convincing fashion. It will convince the ethnic minorities only if it is genuine.
The report makes a series of other recommendations. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us—the Gulf war notwithstanding—how far the Government have got not only in considering them but implementing them. For instance, so as to address perceptions of racism in the services, it is suggested that the purpose of such a campaign would be to show a more positive side of the experiences of ethnic minority service personnel.
There are always risks in such a strategy. A few years ago, it became necessary to have a more positive image of women in the services. That campaign walked the tightrope between the widely held view outside that every woman who entered the services was a butch lesbian and presenting the image of women inside the armed forces in such a way that the forces could not be accused of sexism.
We understand that such issues have to be treated with considerable sensitivity, but they must be taken head on and dealt with.
We believe that the report was right when it stated that the services have considered what to do in the long term in allaying the fears of ethnic minority parents. It was recommended that advertisements in the ethnic minority press should be aimed specifically at parents. It was said that that would be an appropriate way to start the procedure. An extremely important recommendation involved the training of trainers and of recruiters. I hope that the Minister will respond to all these matters so that we may learn what advances, if any, have been made.
We want to know whether additional training will be given to recruitment officers on the recruitment of members of the ethnic minorities. Will recruitment advertising be reorganised so that it presents a more attractive and more positive image to members of the ethnic minorities? Above all, what concrete steps are the Government taking to deal with racism within the armed forces? These questions need to be answered because the moral issues that are involved are sufficient grounds for taking speedy and effective action to deal with the problem that has already been identified.
Even if the grounds of principle were not sufficient—I believe that they are—practical considerations such as undermanning and future recruitment are in themselves sufficient to compel any responsible Government to take action. We pride ourselves on being a multicultural and diverse society whose very diversity enriches society as a whole. We should expect no less from the armed forces, which we ask to protect our society.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): It has been an interesting debate. I am glad that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) has presented me with the opportunity of making clear the Government's position on members of the ethnic minorities within the armed forces.
The hon. Lady referred to the United States armed forces and their position on members of ethnic minorities. As I am sure she knows, they have a policy of positive discrimination for minority groups, including women. I think that she accepts that positive discrimination conflicts with the principle of equal opportunities. It could be said that positive discrimination is illegal under our race relations legislation. That does not stop the encouragement of under-represented groups, however, and we are doing everything that we can in the Ministry of Defence to encourage members of the ethnic minorities to come forward.
The hon. Lady talked about the bullying of certain individuals. I am sure that she knows that there were problems of bullying in the armed forces in the past. They were problems which had to be dealt with firmly down the chain of command. The cases that come to mind did not involve the bullying of members of ethnic minoritiesblacks—within the armed forces. White soldiers—one presumes the less adequate ones—were hounded by their comrades. We have been dealing with the problem and stamping it out. There is a tendency in regimental life for certain individuals to be picked upon. It is not exclusively

a matter of whites picking on blacks, and, as I have said, we have been taking measures to ensure that bullying does not happen.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) made the point, which has recently been brought home to us strongly, that war does not discriminate and that when it comes to death and injury, there is no colour bar. It was certainly brought home to me when I visited Woolwich hospital recently and saw some of the injured. There was one young black man from the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. He was from one of the Warrior vehicles which was attacked. As the House knows, a number of people died in that attack and others were injured.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North quoted from a book. I accept that he had reservations about the description of the skinhead element within the armed forces. When we saw members of the armed forces on television recently in the Gulf coverage, there was no evidence of a skinhead element. People were full of admiration for all ranks, who showed themselves to be extremely professional, reserved and controlled. The description of "skinhead" would have conflicted totally with the impression that the British people got of our very professional armed forces. I think that the public generally looked on them with pride.
I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's policies on ethnic minorities in the armed forces. We firmly support the principle of equal opportunities for ethnic minorities and have taken steps in many areas to put that principle into practice.
As the House may be aware, the armed services are subject to the Race Relations Act 1976. They are fully integrated, non-discriminatory organisations, and no form of racial discrimination is tolerated in either recruitment or subsequent employment in the armed services. Any member of the armed services who feels that he or she has been wronged in any way has the right to submit a complaint under the redress of grievance procedures provided for in the services discipline Acts. I assure the House that all such complaints are taken very seriously and are thoroughly investigated. If complaints are proven, appropriate action will be taken against those involved.
In April 1987, we introduced a system of monitoring the ethnic origins of all formal applicants and entrants to the armed forces. The results of the first year of ethnic monitoring indicated that there was significant under-representation of ethnic minorities among the applicants to the services. The statistics were mentioned by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. Overall, the ethnic minorities amounted to only 1·6 per cent. of applicants, whereas estimates from the labour force survey indicated that they formed some 5·6 per cent. of the total Great Britain population in the 15 to 24 age group, from which most applicants to join the services are drawn. The proportion of entrants to the armed services from the ethnic minorities was 1·1 per cent., showing that the success rate of ethnic minority applicants was lower than that for white applicants.
The armed forces share the same problem as the police, to whom the hon. Lady referred. The Metropolitan police find that the number coming forward in the metropolitan area is about 3 per cent., against a total estimated minority population in the London area of 14 per cent., so there seems to be a difficulty in the police as well as in the armed forces.
We were very concerned that the ethnic minorities were under-represented among applicants and entrants to the armed services. In order to help us to improve the position, we commissioned a study by independent consultants into ethnic minority recruitment to the services. The study was mentioned by the hon. Lady and by the hon. Gentleman. I informed the House of the outcome of the study in January 1990, and I made clear at the time that we had accepted all but two of the consultants' 23 recommendations.
Although the consultants found that the attitudes of young people from the ethnic minorities towards employment were not markedly different from those of their white counterparts, they were less likely to consider a career in the armed services. There were a number of reasons but, regrettably, the fear of encountering racial discrimination was cited in many cases.
Clearly, action was needed to improve the image of the armed forces as a career among young people from the ethnic minorities, and many of the consultants' recommendations were directed to that aim. A central feature of their proposals was to give positive encouragement to applications from members of the ethnic minorities. To project a more welcoming image in our recruiting literature and advertisements, we have improved the wording of our equal opportunities statements and have increased the representation of ethnic minority service personnel in our recruiting and advertising literature.
The training courses for recruiting staff now include a session devoted entirely to ethnic minority recruiting. The objectives of those sessions are to promote a more positive attitude towards ethnic minority recruiting, to increase the recruiters' knowledge and awareness of the ethnic minorities by discussing the various cultures, customs and religions, and to act as a forum for discussing problems relating to ethnic minority recruiting that the recruiters may have encountered.
A number of initiatives have been taken to develop contacts with ethnic minority communities. Presentations have been given to ethnic minority community and religious leaders. The Army, in conjunction with the north-east London college, is developing a course which aims to orientate candidates to the Army and improve their chances of passing the necessary tests and interviews. The Army is also taking part in a joint initiative with the Department of Trade and Industry to identify potential candidates and train them up to Army entrance standards.
The consultants found our selection procedures thorough and objective, and fully in conformity with the code of practice of the Commission for Racial Equality—but they recommended that we carry out a more detailed form of ethnic monitoring to help identify any special problems encountered during the selection process. This we are now doing.
We allocated some £600,000 specifically to ethnic minority recruitment in the current financial year. Those funds have been used by the Navy and the Army to purchase mobile career information offices which will be used in areas of high ethnic minority population. They have also been used to advertise in the ethnic minority press, and to produce recruiting leaflets in ethnic minority languages in order to explain the benefits of a service career to the parents of potential recruits. We shall again be allocating funds to ethnic minority recruitment in the next financial year.
The consultants emphasised that a dramatic increase in the number of recruits from the ethnic minorities could not be expected in the short term. We appreciate that it will take a sustained effort on our part, over many years, to achieve a significant increase in ethnic minority applications, but the initiatives that I have described have already done a great deal to start that process moving.
We only monitor the ethnic origins of applicants to the armed forces. That is an anonymous, self-classification system. We do not keep records of the ethnic origins of serving personnel by rank or otherwise. Promotion is by merit regardless of race.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington said that there should be more monitoring of those already in the services. I am sure that she agrees that that would have to be done on a voluntary basis, and one might find that service men and women were not prepared to describe their colour or other characteristics.

Ms. Abbott: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but in respect of monitoring by regiment, the Select Committee felt strongly that the only way to prove that the Guards were not discriminating was to monitor by cap badge

Mr. Hamilton: The result is that certain regiments would then be picked upon, and so forth. The difficulty there was mentioned by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North. We want significant numbers of representatives of ethnic minorities going into the brigade of Guards together. It must be very difficult for individuals who end up in a regiment of the brigade. It would be better if we could organise it so that, rather than a lone person, groups went through together so that they could give support to each other.
One of the recommendations of the consultants' report that we did not accept was that ethnic minorities should be guided towards regiments where there were other ethnic minorities already. On the whole, we felt that that was difficult to achieve because we do not know where the numbers are. I suspect that there is, de facto, a tendency for the home county regiments—the Queen's Division, and so on—to have a higher percentage of blacks than other regiments might have, and I suspect that that gives a certain amount of reassurance to those who then join those regiments.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington about how unsatisfactory the position of the brigade of Guards is. On the other hand, there are great difficulties for people who are in the van of any movement to increase ethnic minority representation in the Household Division

Dr. Reid: Perhaps I may ask the Minister for clarifications as I think that I agree with what I think he said first—that there are dangers, or at least discomforts and extra stresses, involved in sending isolated people from ethnic minorities to pioneer in particular regiments. I then understood the Minister to say that he also discounted sending them to regiments where there were already a number of members of the ethnic minorities. So where does that leave us? Is the sending of groups of members of ethnic minorities into regiments where there is not a large presence being actively considered?

Mr. Hamilton: Returning to the consultants' recommendations, we did not accept that ethnic minorities should be directed towards regiments which already had a


number of blacks within the ranks as we did not know which regiments had. Having said that, what happens de facto is that members of the Queen's Division, for instance, recruit from areas around London where the black population is higher than in other parts of the country, so I suspect that blacks end up going to regiments where there are already a number of them and that is the way it maps out. That is the way it happens naturally, but we are not in a position to know precisely what the numbers are in each regiment.
That brings me back to the matter that I was discussing with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington. I am not sure that even if one carried out a voluntary census, throughout the ranks of the armed forces, one would get a satisfactory result. If it were done on a voluntary basis, it would depend on people filling in forms, and saying whether they regarded themselves as black, white or whatever.

Ms. Abbott: The Minister is very tall—is he, by any chance, an ex-Guards officer?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, I certainly am. As I said to the hon. Lady earlier, I am not at all satisfied with the position in the brigade of Guards now. On the other hand, there are great difficulties associated with changing that situation. As I said earlier, in an ideal world—I am not certain in my own mind how one would organise this—we ought to be thinking in terms of a number of blacks going through the training process together, into a brigade of Guards regiment, because it must be hard for individuals. I shall deal with Guardsman Stokes later, if I may.
We have taken the view that in-service monitoring would be damaging and racially divisive among the close-knit communities of the armed forces. The service community is unique in a number of ways, and the practices of other employers are not necessarily relevant; furthermore, there is no evidence of support for ethnic monitoring among ethnic minority service personnel themselves. Those interviewed by the consultants during their study into ethnic minority recruitment were opposed to in-service monitoring, and as a consequence the consultants did not recommend it.
The hon. Lady mentioned the case of Stephen Anderson. Following Lord Justice Taylor's judgment last November, a rehearing of the case is now in hand. A board of inquiry has investigated all the facts relevant to the case, and is expected to report soon. The Army Board will then reconsider the case, taking full account of both the judgment and the board of inquiry report. All factors will be taken into account, and full consideration will be given to the issue of compensation. We are currently considering what changes may be necessary to service procedures for handling redress-of-grievance cases, in the light of Lord Justice Taylor's judgment. No decision has yet been made.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the case of Guardsman Stokes. I find this slightly confusing. The hon. Lady said that Guardsman Stokes was a credit to his family, and

indeed he was. He was also a good and enthusiastic soldier and a keen athlete, and he was very well liked in his regiment. The Army would have been delighted if he had decided to sign on for further service, but many soldiers decide to leave after completing a three-year engagement, and that is what Stokes did. Although he was encouraged to reconsider his decision and stay for a further three years, the decision to leave was his alone.
It is important to note that Stokes made no complaint about racial abuse at any time during his service, nor—notwithstanding stories in the press—did he subsequently lodge a formal complaint with the Army authorities. Any such complaint would, of course, be investigated. If there was any question of racial abuse against Stokes, which is what the hon. Lady is now claiming, he has let down all his black colleagues in the armed forces by not registering a complaint. If he wants such complaints to be investigated, he should present them. If he does nothing, nothing can possibly be done to help him, or others who may be suffering from racial abuse. He was popular in his regiment and, as I have said, I am a bit confused about the case—if there was racial abuse, why have we not heard about it before?
It was also suggested that Guardsman Stokes was not allowed to go on a physical training course. He thought that that was evidence of discrimination against him. However, he became eligible to go on the course during the last year of what he had decided would be a three-year term of service. Given the expense involved, the Army is on the whole somewhat reluctant to train people who do not intend to stay in the Army afterwards. By that time, Guardsman Stokes had made it clear that he was in for only three years. If he had said that he would like to stay for six years, the Army would have been more than happy to send him on the course.
It would be naive to suggest that racial prejudice does not exist in the armed forces—just as it does, unfortunately, in other areas of our society. I can assure the House, however, that the services view acts of racial discrimination as intolerable and have worked hard to eliminate such behaviour wherever it occurs. It is important to recognise that the efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces are founded on teamwork. The trust of each member of the team in his comrades' abilities, loyalty and friendship is vital. Racism, whether institutional or individual, can have no place in the service environment and I join the hon. Lady in condemning it utterly.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all the personnel from the ethnic minorities who, with other members of the armed services during the operation to liberate Kuwait, displayed the high standards and professionalism that we have come to expect from the British armed forces.
I hope that I have demonstrated tonight that we are working hard to increase the numbers of recruits from the ethnic minorities to the services. I know that they will be offered full and satisfying careers in a profession where individuals are judged by their performance and not by the colour of their skin.

Share Ownership

Mr. Conal Gregory: It is an appropriate time to discuss the path of denationalisation, particularly when manufacturing exports have increased by almost half since 1979. Furthermore, United Kingdom economic growth has been more rapid than it has in either France or West Germany since 1979—and in the previous two decades we had had the slowest growth of the major European Community states. In addition, business investment has risen by two-thirds over the 1980s—by half since 1979 and by three-quarters since 1981. By the end of last year there were nearly 375,000 more businesses in operation than there were a decade ago. So I welcome this morning the opportunity to debate these key matters against such a good and successful economic background, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Front Bench.
As a result of all this, the real take-home pay for a married man on average earnings has increased by a third since 1979. Much of this success lies in taking unnecessary parts of the state out of Government control where it was stifled by red tape and putting it into efficient private hands where proper expansion could apply. The number of shareholders has more than trebled since 1979. A survey in February 1990 showed that 11 million people—one in four of the adult population—owned shares.
Denationalisation subjects companies to the discipline of the market place and forces them to put customers first. A private sector company cannot survive if it does not satisfy its clients. The profit performance of former nationalised industries suggests that denationalisation has helped to improve customer service. Furthermore, employees have a stake in the success of their business, as a glance at the National Freight Corporation alone will show. Denationalised companies allow their full potential to be realised and new customers to be won.
Whenever possible, denationalisation has been accompanied by a policy of increasing competition so as to guarantee customers a wide choice of goods and services at low prices. For example, the United Kingdom has led Europe in liberalising the airways following the denationalisation of British Airways. One can recall a time when, under Labour, that fine airline was ranked lower than Ethiopian Airways.
Another example is the fact that the United Kingdom has led Europe in liberalising the telecommunications market, bringing obvious and large benefits to consumers. The denationalisation of British Telecom was accompanied by the licensing of a direct competitor, Mercury, whose success forced British Telecom to cut the prices of long-distance calls.
A further example is the denationalisation of long-distance coaches. Now such coach travel is enjoying a marked revival. Competition has helped to drive prices down, improve the range and quality of services available and make long-distance travel possible for many people such as pensioners.
Yet denationalisation has not been carried out irresponsibly. Tough regulatory authorities have been established to protect consumers where areas of natural monopoly remain. Oftel, the telecommunications watchdog, has been highly successful in this context. Under terms agreed with British Telecom, prices can now only

rise by 4·5 points less than the rate of inflation, and British Telecom has agreed to introduce itemised billing and pay £5 per day for failure to repair faults within two working days. Any such suggestion would have been more appropriate to April fool's day under a Labour Government. What a contrast that is with the bad old socialist days. Similar consumer rights have been enshrined in law for the electricity and water industries.
I will cite some specific examples of improvements. Less than three years ago there was a less than 50 per cent. chance of having a business telephone line installed within six working days; today, the figure is 77 per cent. Some 82 per cent. of residential telephone lines are now installed within eight working days. However, faster installation is only one of the many ways that customer service has improved through denationalisation. Any constituent walking on the street would find it hard to discover a public pay phone that was not working. A survey by the Yorkshire Evening Post in the greater York area examined that only a short time ago. It found an incredibly high proportion of public telephones in good working order. Indeed, nationally the figure is 96 per cent. in perfect working order—yet in December 1987 the figure was as low as 72 per cent.
In the same year, 4·3 per cent. of long-distance calls were not getting through; now it is only 0·7 per cent., and the figure is still improving. Where there was once a one in four chance of finding directory inquiries engaged, there is now only a one in 12 chance. British Telecom engineers are now clearing nine out of 10 faults within a working day. Of course, there is a great deal more to be done, but I wanted to give those specific examples of customer improvement that have resulted directly from denationalisation.
Such a denationalisation programme—so beneficial to manager, employee and customer—has brought benefits to the state purse. The coffers have been increased, so that the Government have been able to cut taxes, increase spending on priority areas and reduce the national debt. Richard Pryke, a specialist in the economics of nationalised industries, undertook a careful comparison in 1982. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary may be aware of that study, which was entitled, "The comparative performance of public and private enterprise," which was published in the July 1982 edition of Fiscal Studies. His conclusions are worth examination by the House.
Pryke chose three areas for the like-with-like comparisons. First, in civil aviation he compared the performance of British Airways with that of British Caledonian. Of course, his performance comparison pre-dates the turn around in the fortunes of British Airways. Secondly, in short sea ship and hovercraft services he compared the record of Sealink UK with that of European Ferries, as well as comparing the record of BR Hovercraft with that of Hover Lloyd. Thirdly, for the sale of gas and electrical appliances and contracting, he compared the record of the two nationalised concerns—the British Gas Corporation and the electricity boards—with that of private competitors. In each case he concluded that the record of the nationalised concern was worse than that of its private-sector competitor, whether judged by profitability or by productivity indicators. Public enterprise achieved that poor result despite having certain advantages. For example, British Airways operates out of Heathrow, while British Caledonian operates out of Gatwick.
Two related aspects of management are criticised. First, the nationalised industries appeared to have been slow in reacting to market developments; secondly, they seem to have been willing to continue running sections of their businesses at a loss, and have been reluctant to rationalise their operations. Pryke does not believe that the unprofitability was caused by nationalised industries having non-commercial objectives, such as running social services.
Those views by a respected international economist place denationalised companies in their rightful context.
What is the range of companies that have been denationalised? The list is a long one, and I shall not tire the House with it at this early hour of the morning. However, I shall name some key companies. We can remember Amersham International, Associated British Ports, British Leyland—in which the Government held 99·7 per cent. of the shares—British Aerospace, British Airways, the British Airports Authority—now known as BAA plc—British Gas, British Shipbuilders, British Telecom, Britoil, Cable and Wireless, Enterprise Oil, Jaguar, National Bus, the National Freight Corporation, which has 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom's road haulage market, Roll-Royce, Royal Ordnance, TSB and the electricty and water authorities.
Clearly some areas have not been denationalised and perhaps this is one of the most pungent political points that I wish to make today. As I represent York, I am bound to say that the most obvious area in which denationalisation has not occurred fully is British Rail. Some parts have been brought into the private sector. Although many people think that British Transport hotels have been completely denationalised, no fewer than 11 hotels remain in state ownership, although I cannot understand why that should be. Sealink was denationalised in 1984, operating 37 ferries and 10 harbours. British Rail Engineering Ltd. is a highly successful, well-geared engineering company. Indeed, it need not necessarily remain a railway engineering company. It now offers over 20 per cent. more in salary terms to its workers in comparison with equivalent jobs in British Rail. It also offers shares in the company.
Why are the Government holding back from selling the rest of British Rail? Why have they not sold British Coal or the Post Office? Why are they holding back as much as 49·8 per cent. of British Telecom? After the successful launch last week of National Power and PowerGen, why are the Government retaining 40 per cent? Following the success of the flotation of subsidiaries such as BREL, it is high time that bodies like BR were split further. For example, the core of British Rail could be split like the Civil Aviation Authority. There could be a signalling and track authority and trains could pay to cross the system in terms of frequency, time and use. I am sure that denationalisation would be in the interests of employees and the freight and passenger customers.
On the other hand, the Opposition are committed to nationalisation. Their industry policy has not moved away from Clause Four. One of the key messages of the debate is that employees in free enterprise, denationalised companies can expect their shares to be snatched away or invalidated and their wages to fall if Labour is ever returned to power. Customers can expect to return to

higher prices, less flexibility and less service. People with pensions can expect a fall in the value of their holdings and hence in the dividend or pension. Lovers of state intervention and red tape will have a field day. Labour would fuel inflation with such a strategy and could finance its proposals only by a levy on industry, or by raising taxes disproportionately, or both. That would be a return to the disastrous economics of the 1960s with socialist policies of subsidies, quangos and tax allowances. After 12 years in opposition, one might have expected the Labour party to produce some fresh ideas, but sadly that is not the case.
At the next election the public will remember Labour's pledge to renationalise. Labour's rather inadequate representatives try to sabotage flotations within days and hours of each denationalisation going public. What did the socialists do for the water industry when they were last in power? Did they commit proper resources to that industry? They certainly did not. Under socialist control, investment was cut by half.
It is not surprising that the only Labour Member to attend this debate has only just entered the Chamber. Nevertheless, I welcome him

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am here for the next debate

Mr. Gregory: The socialists may try to dress up their intentions by using a marketing phrase like "social ownership," but the truth is that not one denationalised company will be safe if Labour take power.
Apart from the ballot box, one of the greatest bulwarks in our determination to ensure that Britain goes forward in a spirit of enterprise is a widening of the shareholder base and making share allocations part of the salary package. Such is the interest and enthusiasm of employees that some 84,000 people, plus 21,000 pensioners, from the 12 regional electricity companies, the National Grid Company and the Electricity Association applied for and received shares recently. Between them, they were allocated almost 160 million shares. That is true capitalism at work.
Perhaps the most telling statistic that I could give the House is that a driver or fitter who invested £1,000 in 1982 at the time of the employee buy-out of the National Freight Corporation could be sitting on £70,000 value today. Nothing could be clearer than that message for every trade unionist in the land. A vote for socialism would actually erode common sense and the value of their savings. Those who are worried about taking the plunge into the private sector need look no further.
Britons have invested many times more in their homes than in equities in the post-war era. It is time to redress the balance and encourage greater share participation. It is clearly important to change national attitudes. For example, we need more comprehensive reporting by pension funds and investment schemes. I well appreciate the quip made in some Sunday finance columns that getting information out of the pension funds is almost as difficult as trying to investigate the finances of the Vatican. I shall not encroach upon that, but pension funds are generally a reluctant audience.
The tax treatment of direct share ownership should be changed. It would be apt to give an annual tax-free allowance to those investing directly in a United Kingdom company. The Confederation of British Industry task force suggested that it could be £100 a month—a modest but sensible proposal for my right hon. Friend the


Chancellor of the Exchequer. Furthermore, we need to change the personal equity plan regulations to allow more than one plan manager in any one tax year and to increase the annual limit to £10,000. We need to introduce a lump sum PEP scheme to encourage investment of inherited funds and pension lump sums.
We must both reduce the time period before employees can become shareholders in their own right and provide a greater incentive to retain shares once their options have been exercised or transferred to the employee. With respect to profit-sharing schemes, the shares acquired under the Inland Revenue profit-sharing schemes should be transferable into a PEP without having to be sold and repurchased. That would avoid taxes and charges. The period for which the shares are held by the share trust before they are transferred could be reduced from five to three years.
Accounts and other circulars to shareholders should clearly be distributed to all participating employees. It would be helpful if when shares became transferable a statement was sent to all employees of the capital growth and the dividends received on shares since allocation. Furthermore, institutional investment committees should not restrict the numbers of shares purchased for the benefit of employees under profit-sharing schemes. If share purchases are to be made easier for individuals, we need to look at the saving and follow the recommendation of TAURUS, the International Stock Exchange system for electronic recording of ownership and transfer of shares, so that they can be passed on to the private investor.
A share maintenance service is needed for the private investor at no additional cost. At present there is a lack of liquidity in the stocks of smaller companies, which could and should be investigated by the ISE. There should perhaps be separate orders with a driven market for smaller company stocks. We may well see the development of retail stockbrokers closely involved with companies which wish to seek the help of private customers.
As I reach the end of these thoughts, I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who hoped to participate in the debate but has not been able to do so.
The Government have encouraged employee share ownership in successive Finance Acts and tax reliefs, and with important concessions in the Companies Act 1989. Politically, the value of employee share ownership to the worker, to the company, to the economy and to society is now well established. There is more employee identification with a firm's need for profitability and its return on capital. There is more motivation for the work force to assist the development and efficiency of the company. There is less tendency to engage in labour disputes and more realism about pay negotiations. There is a lower staff turnover through loyalty and a greater sense of involvement of the company in the community in which it operates, as I saw frequently with Rowntree Mackintosh before it became part of Nestle in York, and as I have seen since then when it has been under Swiss ownership.
It is admitted that many of the benefits will be realised only if the companies concerned adopt participatory management techniques. If not, the sense of involvement that the work force have through shareholding may remain rather latent. That should apply whatever percentage of the company is held by employees.
Clearly, the Treasury is not entirely sympathetic to qualifying ESOPs because of the tax privileges that have

occurred in the United States. It could be argued that some have become corporate financing tools. However, I am sure that there are devices that my hon. Friend and his Treasury team could use to ensure a more appropriate way of developing wider share ownership, partly through tax breaks, and to reduce inflation.
If we see in the next pay round of British Rail, for example, not only an increase in wages, but an opportunity for employees to participate in shares, just as was done in British Rail Engineering Ltd., there will be a reduction in the demand on the British Railways Board, a lowering of the increase in ticket prices for passengers, an increase in freight costs that is below inflation and an opportunity for the company gradually to ease its way towards the market.
I have referred to several possible schemes and I have given examples of many companies which have moved into the private sector since 1979. I have been clear and open to the House about the dangers that would occur in the unlikely event of our ever having a socialist Government again. I welcome the opportunity for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to respond to some of those positive thoughts.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Gregory) on securing a place in this important debate, if not on securing this place.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate one of the most important sets of issues on the economic agenda of politics. The importance of this series of issues is unquestioned except, it seems, on the Opposition Benches. One would have expected that on the issues of denationalisation and wider share ownership, on which my hon. Friend has spoken so eloquently and in such an informed way, there would be some interest from the Labour Benches. What do we see? We see the Labour Benches with but a sole occupant, the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), who was quick to point out that he was present not to have anything to do with this debate, but to secure his position in the subsequent debate. I have the pleasure of also participating in that debate.
It is surprising and disappointing that my hon. Friend and I should be conducting this debate between ourselves because I suspect that we shall find that we agree on most points. It would have been interesting to hear the Labour party's view, or perhaps today's view, on denationalisation and the ownership of shares., Does it think that that is good, worthwhile, helpful activity, as we do? It is disappointing that, when these grave and important issues come before the House, all that we hear from the Labour party is a long and deafening silence. My hon. Friend and I will have to make up the deficit between us and see what we can do to throw light on the issues.
My hon. Friend has spoken in a learned fashion on the subject of privatisation. He has gone through many of the merits of the process and has illustrated his case with a wealth of examples. Privatisation has been one of the many stunning successes of the Government's economic and social policies over the nearly 12 years that they have been in office. The policy was highly controversial at its outset; gradually, as the process has continued, it has become less so. The Labour party has gradually moved


away from its root-and-branch opposition to the very idea of denationalisation to something which is at best ambivalent, a sort of muted hostility.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bradford, South is temporarily leaving his place, because it would be interesting to hear from the sole representative of the Labour party present what the current view of the Labour party is on that great issue.
Since 1979, as my hon. Friend has said, a great many companies have been privatised—transferred from state ownership into what I would call genuine public ownership where the public own the shares in the business. More than 900,000 jobs have been transferred to the private sector. The state-owned sector of industry has fallen by more than 60 per cent. since 1979. Generally, the result has been that the industries have been subjected to much greater competition than hitherto, but even where a monopoly has been privatised, there has been tough and transparent regulation to protect the consumers while allowing private sector standards of efficiency to be injected into the business.
The total proceeds so far are some £28·5 billion before the present sale of the electricity generating companies. The performance of companies that have been transferred back into genuine public ownership has been, as my hon. Friend pointed out, startling. The pre-tax profits of British Aerospace have increased more than fivefold since 1981 when it was privatised. The profits of the National Freight Consortium are up almost 22 times since privatisation and the recent successful flotation on the stock exchange.
As my hon. Friend vividly illustrated, there are benefits to consumers. British Telecom's prices are down 22·5 per cent. in real terms since 1984. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, in his historic statement to the House some two weeks ago in which he announced the end of BT's duopoly, showed how the benefits of competition, of denationalisation, come through so sharply and distinctly to the consumers of the services. He announced further price reductions as a direct result of the benign policy that we have pursued. There are 17 per cent. more pay phones than in 1984—pay phones that work, compared with the position before privatisation when one's chances of finding a pay phone that worked were slight. The domestic prices of British Gas are down 10 per cent. in real terms since privatisation.
Privatisation has made companies that play an important role in the British economy more successful and has contributed substantially to economic growth and the dynamism of the British economy. That process will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for York referred to some of the candidates for privatisation—the significant businesses still under state ownership on which the spotlight should properly fall. He mentioned British Coal and he will be aware of our pledge to privatise the coal industry.
My hon. Friend referred to British Rail, which he knows extremely well and the interests of which are close to his heart. When he makes the case for privatisation, the Government must listen with much respect because of his close constituency and other interests in the industry. We

cannot contemplate privatisaton in this Parliament and no firm decisions have been taken, but it is very much on the agenda.
My hon. Friend also referred to the Post Office, parts of which have been denationalised. Girobank was sold and is operating successfully in the private sector. Further consideration is being given to privatising other parts of the Post Office.
I shall devote a little attention to the share ownership aspects of my hon. Friend's speech. Privatisation and share ownership go closely together but are not dependent on each other. There is no doubt that the flotation of shares in some of the larger previously state-owned companies has given share ownership a huge boost. Share ownership would have increased in any event, but probably not to the extent that it has. In the United States, without the stimulus of privatisation, 25 per cent. of adults own shares. Share ownership in Britain is almost as high. There is not the same depth of share ownership, but I hope that that will develop.
During this Government's period of office there has been an unprecedented rise in the number of shareholders. Share ownership used to be seen as the preserve of the wealthy or the professional classes. Now it is the choice of all classes. Direct ownership of shares in British companies has spread throughout the nation.
In 1979, only 7 per cent. of the adult population owned shares. That figure had been more or less constant for many years. A few companies had been distributing shares to their employees and a few eloquent voices called for wider share ownership. However, the prospects for progress at that stage seemed to be few. Since then, share ownership has spread more widely every year. The growth has been steady, particularly since 1984, and the results have been spectacular.
By January 1990, 24 per cent. of the adult population owned shares. Nearly one in every four adults was by then a share owner. We have long envied such a level of share ownership in other countries such as Japan and the United States. Many people thought that such a level of share ownership was impossible to achieve in the United Kingdom. A great deal of progress has been made as a result of much attention having been paid to this important issue.
My hon. Friend referred to the CBI's task force and its useful and interesting report. Converts to the cause are being made all the time. At last July's meeting of the National Economic Development Council it was a pleasant surprise to find that even the Trades Union Congress was reasonably positive. Its general secretary declared himself to be a "not unsceptical convert" to the cause. I suppose that that is a start. As time goes on and as he begins to understand better what share ownership means, he may become a wholly unsceptical convert. That is a helpful and beneficent development.
Some people—including some hon. Members—may still be doubters. It is worth, therefore, saying a few words about why share ownership is an important objective. A property-owning democracy was advocated as long ago as 1929 by Sir Anthony Eden. Since then we have worked ceaselessly to encourage home ownership. We have been very successful. Capital ownership is the next stage after home ownership. Owning some capital provides a family with the same independence, self-reliance and security as


home ownership. That is why we encourage families and individuals to save. We have set out to revive and restore the habit of thrift.
Savings have a double value. They provide security for savers and they also provide funds for investment, which benefits the whole economy. Shares—ordinary equity—form the clearest link between savings and investment. It is the point at which the cultures of thrift and enterprise join. They produce a feeling in shareholders of direct involvement in the affairs of the company in which they have chosen to invest. That is particularly beneficial for employee shareholders. Anyone who owns shares in the company for which he or she works has every incentive to do his or her best for that company and to encourage co-workers also to do their best, since they will all benefit from its success.
The same is true of all shareholders. Ultimately, the future prosperity of everyone in the country depends upon the performance of British companies. Share ownership makes that sometimes harsh fact more obvious. It brings the investor directly into contact with the risks and rewards of capitalism and it is a key element in the culture of enterprise.
My hon. Friend referred to a number of steps that the Government have taken to promote share ownership. It can be fairly said that those steps have been successful. There would in any event have been some development towards the cause of wider share ownership, which we all espouse, but Government stimulus has been helpful to the process.
Some tax benefits have been attached to employee share ownership schemes, for instance. The process has been effected on a strictly voluntary basis; we do not believe in coercing firms into adopting bureaucratic models of employee involvement that may well turn out to be ill-suited to their needs. We believe in fostering employee involvement in the ways judged best for each company and its work force. Share ownership is one of the most valuable methods of promoting involvement. The aim is to produce an identity of interest between the worker and the shareholder. The simplest way of doing that is when they are one and the same person. That provides the strongest possible incentive to work for the prosperity of the company.
To this end, we have established a number of different models of approved employee share schemes, providing different kinds of tax relief to accompany them. Perhaps the two most important of the all-employee share schemes are the profit-sharing scheme and the savings-related share option scheme. I am pleased to say that the latest year for which figures are available, 1989–90, was a record year for all employee schemes: 1·3 million employees were granted shares or options over shares, with a total initial value of £1,370 million. For the holders of options, the value of the

shares when they come to exercise their options may be significantly higher, although that depends, as it should, on their companies' performances.
By the end of 1989–90 a total of 890 profit-sharing schemes had been approved, as had 891 savings-related share option schemes. In all, about 2·25 million employees have benefited from these schemes, receiving shares or options worth an initial value of £6·5 billion. New companies continue to introduce such schemes. One hundred and seventy-eight new schemes were approved in 1989–90 and I hope that more companies will open such schemes in future.
We also welcome firms setting up their own employees' share arrangements, which may fall outside tax-relieved approved share schemes under the Finance Act. No company will be forced into the framework of that Act.
I am glad of the opportunity to comment on this important subject. It is delightful to see Opposition Members coming into the Chamber as the debate moves on. I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—it is a great pleasure to see him gracing the Opposition Benches at this time in the morning—is here for this debate or the following one. If he is keeping his powder dry for the next debate, I look forward to discussing that important matter with him.
I must, however, register again my disappointment that the Opposition have not felt this an important enough subject to come to the House and say where they stand on these weighty matters——

Mr. Gregory: Does my hon. Friend share my conclusion that the absence of Labour Members from the debate stems from their embarrassment about their policy? They have not renounced Clause Four and they have tried to dress up renationalisation in marketing jargon as social ownership. My hon. Friend's lucid description of employees participating in such schemes corresponds with a reversal of pay bargaining and the bad old days of the 1960s

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend asks a pertinent question. As we have sitting on the Front Bench a senior member of the Opposition's finance team, we may have some elucidation. We may be able to find out whether the Opposition's Front-Bench team stick as closely to Clause Four of the Labour party's constitution, or whether that is to be brushed aside. If it is to be the latter, the hon. Member for Bradford, South may have something to say about that. The world is waiting, with bated breath, to hear the way that the Labour party is moving. Does it remain committed to nationalisation, to re-nationalisation and the appropriation of the shares for which our citizens have paid money, and in which they have taken an interest? What is the Labour party's position on these matters? We ask the question, but all that we hear is silence.

EC (Cost)

Mr. Bob Cryer: The rules of the House preclude me from taking part in more than one debate, so the comments of the Minister and of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory) were sadly misplaced. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman attacked British Rail rather than defending it, as he should have done given that he represents an important railway station and rail centre.
My subject for debate is the cost of the EEC to the United Kingdom. Some in the Conservative party believe that the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) has been standing up for the United Kingdom against the encroachments of the Common Market. That simply is not the case. As soon as she came into office in 1979 she abandoned the United Kingdom derogation from the Common Market rules by removing exchange rate controls.
The channel tunnel, which the right hon. Lady agreed with Mr. Mitterrand, is not a transport improvement. It is designed to link us ever more closely to the Common Market. It was clear during the discussions of plans for it, in Strasbourg, that that was its basic purpose. Furthermore, it was as a result of the right hon. Lady's collaboration with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer that we were taken into the exchange rate mechanism with an overvalued pound and without any safeguards. Far from resisting the encroachments of the Common Market, she dug us deeper into it.
As the Minister is in a petulant mood, let me tell him that my criticism of the cost of membership of the Common Market cannot be ascribed to a little Englander view, in case he takes that line or make jokes about not liking foreigners, and that sort of thing. I find that a peculiar attitude, because the Tories are quite happy to bomb millions of Russians. They are foreigners, and I have opposed that so-called defence strategy.
Like the vast majority of Labour Members, I thought that sanctions against Iraq should have been tried for longer. We did not like the idea of engaging in warfare with innocent Iraqi citizens, as well as the troops. We were concerned about the preservation of human life and the resolution of the conflict without warfare. That is because we are concerned on an international basis. I was supporting the United Nations well before the Government's recent enthusiasm for that organisation. As I have said on many occasions, the Government's embarkation on Trident was a breach of the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I do not want to hear lectures from the Government about support for internationalism and bodies such as the United Nations. I know that the United Nations is an extremely important body, and it will have my continued support.
Criticism of the Common Market is based on a much wider view than the narrow little Englander outlook. It is based on the claim that the Common Market is not Europe, to take up the Eurospeak of today. Europe is a continent of 41 countries, yet the term "Europe" is bandied about as though it has been appropriated by a tiny group of inward-looking countries that will create a so-called free market. In fact, they will create a protected market with a substantial barrier around it. That barrier has already cost us dear.
The Common Market has been, is and is likely to continue to be a millstone round the United Kingdom's neck. There are those who claim that there is no alternative. They come out with sonorous platitudes such as, "We are in and we cannot change things." The Prime Minister said only a couple of days ago that we must be in the heart of the Common Market.
The Common Market is sometimes linked with growing prosperity. The highest standards of living in the continent of Europe are in Switzerland and Sweden, and neither country is in the EEC. So membership of the EEC is not necessary to achieve a high standard of living. It is claimed that the Common Market is necessary if we are to develop our prosperity because we must have a large domestic market of 350 million people to establish the base of a prosperous and developing manufacturing industry. When I ask how it is that Japan is the most prosperous and successful manufacturing country in relation to its population in the world when it does not have such a large domestic base, it seems that there is difficulty in producing an answer.
Can we change what has been done? Of course. Circumstances have a habit of changing radically from time to time. Who would have said two years ago that East Germany and West Germany would so soon become united? Who would have said that the Soviet Union, that seemingly implacable power, would be facing enormous difficulties and its potential break-up? Only a couple of years ago Conservative Members were arguing that we should spend yet greater sums on armaments because of the imminent invasion of the other part of Europe by the Soviet Union. Who would have said that in two years that would all be swept aside and that the notion that the Soviet Union was about to embark on an attack was absurd?
It is the view of some that the Common Market is quite efficient. It is argued that it employs only about 25,000 bureaucrats to cover 12 nations and that that is a modest number, but the number of people employed in Common Market administration duties does not fall into that pattern. In March 1989, I asked the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food:
what is the number of civil servants in his Ministry whose main work is related wholly or mainly to the European Economic Community?
The Minister, who is now a Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Mr. Thompson), replied:
We estimate that between one quarter and one third of the Department's manpower"—
I think that that should be "staff" at a time of greater egalitarianism between the sexes—
including common service and support staff, are concerned directly or indirectly with duties arising out of EEC membership. At 31 January 1989 this amounted approximately to between 2,500 and 3,400 staff … The 950 staff of the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce are entirely engaged on work related to the European Community."—[Official Report, 15 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 250.]
It would not be unfair to say that there are 4,000 in the Ministry of Agriculture and the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce engaged in such work. The Ministry contains the largest number of people working for the EEC on EEC matters.
The number employed by other Departments, with the exception of Departments like Education and Science—not as yet covered by the Common Market although it has ambitions in that direction—is considerable. If we tot them all up, it is a very large figure. However, it is not possible to tot them all up because under the Conservative


Government some Departments are so concerned with transparency and public accountability that they refuse to answer such questions. I give the illustration to show that the employment of EEC employees is wider than the narrow definition normally used.
I will not give figures for every year on the actual money that is handed over to the Common Market, but I have the figures that were provided on 31 July 1990 of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the EEC budget. Although I asked a question, the facilities of the Government proved inadequate to the task and the then Paymaster General said that it was not possible to provide the answer before the summer recess. Therefore, he later sent me a letter and placed a copy in the Library.
In 1979 the net figure, after all grants and hand-outs from the Common Market, was £947 million. When we see notices saying, "Europe helps Bradford again," "Europe helps Scunthorpe again," or Europe helps wherever again, it means that some of our money is coming back. A laborious and expensive process has been undertaken whereby we hand over billions of pounds and then go as supplicants to get some of it back. Local authorities, strapped of cash by the Conservative Government, are naturally grateful for anything that they can obtain to try to improve their services, which have been lament ably cut by the Government.
By the way, it is worth pointing out that if the Conservative Government restored the rate support grant to the level that it was in 1978–79 under Labour—and they are very fond of making comparisons with Labour—we could have an average poll tax of £152 instead of £353. That shows the way in which the Government are pressing local authorities and why local authorities are naturally looking to the Common Market for all the money that they can get back.
Our net contribution to the European Community budget in 1979 was £947 million; in 1981 it was £397 million, in 1983 it was £647 million, in 1985 it was £1,808 million, in 1987 it was £1,721 million and in 1989 it was £2,315 million. The total sent between 1979 and 1989 was £11,737 million. The Minister's letter concluded with the information that the latest estimate is that the United Kingdom's net contribution for 1990 was £2,175 million, making a total to the end of last year of £13,912 million—and that despite the Government's claim that they secured considerable rebates. They do not seem to have benefited the country very much.
There is an additional cost in jobs. The Government's enterprise culture has failed to penetrate the Community's markets in the way that it is supposed to do. As a result, the United Kingdom has a somewhat lamentable trade in manufactured goods. The Conservative view is that trade between this country and the Common Market is increasing and that, somehow, the bigger the deficit, the more successful the economy.
Figures provided by the Library, show that the United Kingdom's trade in cars with the EC for 1990 produced a deficit of £3,898 million; in commercial vehicles, the deficit was £228 million; in parts and accessories, the enterprise culture managed to achieve a shortfall of £1,137 million—a total deficit for our automotive industry of over £5,000 million.
The British textile industry is of particular concern to me, because it employs 14,000 people in Bradford—one third of whose inner-city constituents I represent. That industry shows an EC trade deficit of £1,066 million. If the

Minister were minded to argue that if the industry produced the right goods, having the right designs, and at the right price, they would sell, I should have to tell him that life is not quite like that.
Britain's textile industry is modern and well equipped and I imagine that even the Minister accepts that its work force has been highly co-operative in accepting changes in shift and other work patterns, retraining and rescheduling. The Minister can name it, and it has been done. The industry's standards of design, equipment and production are as high as anywhere in the world.
When Labour was in office, a number of Britain's chipboard manufacturers faced closure. Unlike the Government, we did not shrug our shoulders and say that under the enterprise culture, things must take their natural course according to market economics. Instead, we tried to reverse the trend and to maintain jobs. In comparison with the Conservatives, we did so extremely successfully.
We told the Commission that EC chipboard was being dumped in the United Kingdom at below cost and that that practice was causing job losses. The Commission asked why we did not dump chipboard in Belgium—the country whose activities were causing us concern. The Commission did not realise that if British manufacturers had attempted to do that, every chipboard importer in Belgium would have been placed on a hidden, unofficial, unacknowledged black list, which would have prevented them from distributing any British timber in Belgium. There was, in effect, a barrier against United Kingdom imports and I am certain that the same happens today in respect of our textile industry.
I can draw the Minister's attention to the hidden subsidies in the Prato region of Italy, where social security contributions are virtually not paid because of the pattern of payments, which means that they have a 10 per cent. cost advantage in wages straight away. Many difficulties have arisen for the textile industry from such sources, which is extremely unfair.
The clothing industry had a deficit of £548 million; footwear had a deficit of £504 million; generating equipment had a positive balance of £358 million, but specialised machinery again had a deficit of £588 million; metal working equipment had a deficit of £129 million; industrial machinery had a deficit of £637 million; office and data processing equipment had a positive surplus of £674 million; telecommunications and sound equipment had a surplus of £668 million, but electrical machinery had a deficit of £409 million; and machine tools, which are the arbiter of the health of manufacturing industry, had a deficit of £20 million. There was a deficit with the Common Market in 1990 of £9,724 million, and for all goods, a deficit of £10,831 million.
That is an significant deficit, as is demonstrated by the important loss of jobs in manufacturing industry due to a combination of our membership of the Common Market and the. policies of the Government—a poisonous combination for the health of, our manufacturing and general industry.
I shall quote from an interesting article, which appeared in Public Money and Management magazine for the winter—No. 4, volume 10—written by Dr. Brian Burkitt, senior lecturer in economics at the department of social and economic studies at the university of Bradford, and Mark Baimbridge, who is a lecturer in economics at the same university. Describing our manufacturing industry in that article they say:


the historical record demonstrates the damage caused to Britain by EC membership: between 1957 and accession to the EC in 1973 United Kingdom manufacturing output"—
in the 1960s, which the Minister seems so scathing about—
rose by 67%, but from 1973 to 1988 it rose by only 3%. Britain is therefore in danger of becoming the first `underdeveloping' nation: in 1970 the value of UK exports of goods, other than oil, fell short of the value of imports, including food and raw materials, by 3%. In 1988 the shortfall was 26%. Most of this decline was caused by trade with the EC in manufactures. In 1970 the value of manufacturing exports, other than precious stones, to EC countries, exceeded manufacturing imports from them by 30%, yet in 1988 they were 31% lower. This major turnround was not accompanied by an equivalent trade imbalance with the rest of the world.
That shows how our decline in manufacturing has been allied to our membership of the Common Market.
Supporters of the Common Market claim that 2·5 million jobs depend on exports to the EEC. However, between 1970, when we had a manufacturing trade surplus of £16·2 billion at 1988 prices, and 1988, when we had a deficit of £ 15·7 billion, we have lost about 3·75 million jobs in lost manufacturing capacity.
Another cost to our country is the Conservative Government's entry into the exchange rate mechanism. Given the rate that was agreed, our entry was overvalued and imposed a cost on exporters. It was also a blow to our democratic accountability and to economic management by an elected Government. ERM entry cost Belgium 500,000 jobs and cost France cuts in wages; devaluation and interest rates are now determined not by the economic needs of our nation, but by the demands of the exchange rate mechanism.
On 20 February, the Yorkshire Post said:
Britain's membership of the Exchange Rate Mechanism will cost the country 600,000 jobs over the next five years, the chief economist of the National Westminister Bank claimed yesterday.
And although likely effects on jobs were calculated before the Government decided on ERM entry last year, the Treasury refused yesterday to make them public. It eventually confirmed that jobs would be lost.
Both the Treasury and the Department of Employment said yesterday that the means to avoid huge job losses lay in the hands of employers' and employees' wage negotiators … A Department of Employment spokesman said: 'It is not possible to put a figure on the effect of ERM entry on jobs as it will depend on the prices and wage setting behaviour of employers and employees.
The sooner the disciplines of the ERM are accepted and reflected in pay settlements, the smaller will be the effect on jobs'.
The ERM imposed a decade of deflation on Italy and France because it required other members to achieve Germany's abnormally low rate of inflation. Both countries now have substantially higher unemployment rates than Britain, yet Britain must now go through the same process of deflation, but in a much shorter period and without the benefit of the easy American market that we had because of the overvalued dollar.
Tories prefer an overvalued currency, because they represent finance— money, and those who have it. Labour represents unions and workers, who will experience the main impact of deflation. Our view should be different: we cannot accept deflationary economic management and the disciplines of unemployment. When the Government and the National Westminster bank talk about discipline, they do not mean that Ministers will involve themselves in any such discipline; far from it. When the former Chancellor of

the Exchequer talks about discipline, he is talking about workers' being disciplined—about their being told by management, "You cannot have a wage increase, and if you don't like it we will close down the factory."
When the former Chancellor— who endorses the use of such discipline against workers and their families— leaves his comfortably paid job as Chancellor, he goes off to the City and receives an outrageous amount of money: some £200,000 a year for two or three days' work a week. Meanwhile, he is still moonlighting here in Parliament, being paid £30,000 a year of taxpayers' money. It is a scandal and a disgrace. Workers outside should know about the double standards that prevail in this place. If the Tories want to encourage workers, they can always set an example by taking wage cuts and making their own sacrifices.
Another cost of our Common Market membership is the cost in food. The common agricultural policy costs around 70 per cent. of all EEC expenditure. On 14 July 1990, the Financial Times gave a figure of around £62 billion—£16 a week for every family in Britain. We impose a tariff on cheap food from outside the European Community, and pay between two and four times the world price for food.
We have been pouring nitrates on our soil year after year. We have ripped out hedges and paid cereal farmers— and other farmers, but particularly cereal farmers—big money to grow food. We pay them to store it and then the EC buys food on world markets if starvation occurs in central Africa, the Sahel and the Sahara, as it frequently does, while EC food rots in stores.
The Government, in order to get rid of these food mountains, have resorted to free hand-outs of food. I welcome that. It is a reflection of the crazy common agricultural policy and the way that huge food mountains are produced which are sold anywhere but inside the Common Market— and if they are sold at rock-bottom prices on world markets they inhibit the development of the indigenous agricultural industry of the developing world.
Even where there is a hand-out of free food from the Common Market surpluses, however, the Government adopt a churlish and mean-minded attitude towards it. They insist that the only people who can receive it must be on either family credit or income support. In Bradford, where there were long queues for the food, to a point where several pensioners fainted because they were outside for long periods in cold weather—over an hour and in some cases two hours—they were deeply offended to be told on reaching the counter that they could not have any food because they were not on family credit or income support.
If this is the result of a recommendation by the European Commission, the Government should stand up to it and insist that the food may be given out to all pensioners, irrespective of whether they are on family credit or income support. After all, since we have been in the Common Market since 1973, the pensioners will have paid for that food. The food is not free: it is bought and paid for by British taxpayers through their contributions to the common agricultural policy.
In that context, in spite of difficult circumstances, the voluntary organisations—because the Government will not allow local authorities to distribute the food—have coped magnificently with the distribution. They are very much to be congratulated on the work that they have


done. I hope— and I publicise the fact that applications for distribution must be in by 22 March with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—that more organisations in Bradford and elsewhere will make those applications.
We are in a balance of trade deficit with the EEC, I fear, for food as well. The information supplied by the Library demonstrates yet again that the benefits from the Common Market are somewhat sparse. I am sorry that the figures are proving somewhat elusive among my papers, but I can assure the House that the Library provided me with figures that demonstrated that our deficit in the balance of trade in food—I now have the figures to hand—is considerable. The figures are in millions of ecu. Our deficit is 11,282 million ecu, roughly about £5,000 million. So the common agricultural policy is expensive and wasteful and it does not help us in our balance of trade with other EC countries.
One last point worth making about the common agricultural policy is that it is an extremely selfish policy, particularly in its link with the Lomé convention and the Lomé countries, which are really the Francophile countries because when the Conservatives negotiated entry in 1973 they excluded the Commonwealth countries from any benefits that might arise. With few exceptions, if the Lomé countries package or process food, a tariff is slapped on it. That means that the developing countries are not given the full access that they should have to the wealthier Common Market countries.
Our textile industry also faces a cost in the Common Market because the Commission has been desultory in its attitude towards the multi-fibre arrangement and the relative failure—we are not quite clear about the true position—of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The talks are not yet concluded, but the Commission has been pressed on several occasions to ensure that the MFA is extended, pending any outcome from GATT. The MFA regulates the imports of textiles and clothing from 26 developing nations into the United Kingdom and it is vital for the future success of the textile industry. I urge the Minister to make it clear to the Commission that the MFA must be retained if GATT fails.
What is the cost to our environment? Quite apart from the CAP, a directive is floating around the Commission that would increase maximum gross vehicle lorry weights to 44 tonnes, because that is the harmony weight in the Common Market. Our maximum gross vehicle weight is 38 tonnes. When that was agreed in 1983, the then Secretary of State for Transport said that it was the upper limit and that it would not be exceeded. He was pressed by a number of Conservative and Labour Members who were appalled at the thought of even bigger juggernauts going around the narrow lanes and roads of our cities, towns and hamlets.
The then Secretary of State gave an assurance, but the Commission now wants to harmonise road transport throughout the 12 member states and it has produced a directive that will be subject to majority voting. 'We shall be part of a permanent minority in the Common Market. The directive gives a derogation for the United Kingdom and Ireland, but it also provides that after a given number of years, yet to be decided, that derogation will come to an end. Those 44-tonne vehicles will then be on our roads, unless we take very clear and firm action to oppose that, and even then the directive may be imposed by virtue of our minority position.
There is yet a further pressure for harmonisation, and that is on voting systems. There will be a cost to democracy. There is pressure for the proportional representation system, which is prevalent in every other EEC state, to be introduced in this country. In its proponents' eyes, it has the merit of a rigorous centralised party system of control so that, for example, the members of the EEC assembly in Strasbourg or the other parts of the socialist group dare not give any opinion until they have cleared it with the central apparatus of the political party, in case they are dropped 10, 15 or 20 places on the voting list and essentially removed from office by the party apparatchiks. It is a measure for coalition governments, in which the programme is decided in smoke-filled rooms, rather than on the hustings, as the first-past-the-post system provides. That would destroy the relationship that we enjoy— although I suppose that there may be one or two people who do not enjoy it—between ourselves and our constituents, because all the constituencies would become multi-Member constituencies. It would be yet another example of the Community's diminishing the power of this Parliament. It would also be more difficult for people to gain access to the democratic process if control were transferred from London to Brussels and Strasbourg.
My concern about the cost of the Common Market is shared by the Minister. Yesterday we debated the Court of Auditors report. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), who is present today, contributed to that debate. He expressed great concern because fraud in the Common Market runs into millions of pounds a year. In that debate, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury said:
There are some consistent and worrying themes. In particular, there is continuing evidence that certain Community programmes lack objectives that are sufficiently precise. In a number of instances the financial controls needed for proper implementation of certain policies are not in place, are not sufficiently rigorous, or are not being observed properly."—[Official Report, 13 March 1991; Vol. 187, c. 1045.]
That has been said in the House year after year. The Government consistently maintain that they have obtained adequate financial safeguards from the Common Market to ensure that expenditure is properly accounted for, accurately undertaken and is subject to rigorous scrutiny and control. However, it is not; year after year the same thing happens.
That situation will continue as a result of the Common Market's sprawling and amorphous bureaucratic nature unless the Government stand up and argue in the Common Market for proper control and so reduce the costs of membership.
We must always reserve the right to withdraw from the Common Market. That is an important lever in negotiations. I do not claim that we should withdraw in the little-Englander sense. We must maintain our trading and social relations with all the countries of Europe, not just the 12. We need not be bound by political union— we should set our faces clearly and solidly against that.

Mr. Chris Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has done the House a considerable service by identifying


an extremely important issue for us to discuss. I wish to elaborate on several of his points which deserve closer attention.
My hon. Friend referred to the role that had sometimes been claimed by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), and her so-called achievements in securing a better deal for Britain within the Community. My hon. Friend did not make as much of that as he might have done. The record does not bear out much of the rhetoric that we heard from the right hon. Lady at the time or subsequently. My hon. Friend quoted some interesting figures of the fluctuating net contributions that this country has made to Community finances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South also made a valid point about the need to consider Europe not just in terms of the 12 member countries in the Community, but as a wider entity. He was right to do that.
The Labour party believes that the Community should be widened as soon as possible. Austria has already submitted its application for membership and we believe that it should be accepted readily by the existing members. Sweden is shortly due to submit its application for membership and we hope that Sweden and, indeed, the other remaining European Free Trade Association countries can be brought within the European Community at an early date.
Looking to the medium-term future, we hope that some of the emerging democracies in central and eastern Europe will be able, perhaps initially by means of an association agreement, but eventually by full membership, to play their full part in a wider Europe. On the need to look beyond a little-Englander mentality, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South and I are on all fours.
My hon. Friend also drew attention in graphic detail, with a sector-by-sector analysis of the trade deficit, to the deficit between Britain and the European Community. He was right to do so. However, I am not sure that he was right to put the lion's share of the blame for that deficit on the Common Market. The lion's share of the blame for our deficit with the European Community, as for that with much of the rest of the world, lies with the Government's policies and inaction on the needs of British industry in the past 12 years.
The Government not only allowed unbridled credit growth in the period from 1986 to 1988, which ensured that consumption grew massively in our domestic economy and inevitably led to substantial levels of imports being drawn in, but they neglected the needs of the supply side of British industry. In his reply to the previous debate, the Financial Secretary made some glancing references to the relationship between the public and private sectors in the economy. I have to tell him that we in the Labour party believe in a constructive and involved relationship between the public sector, the Government and private industry to ensure that the supply side of the economy works properly—exactly the intervention that has produced the most successful economies in the world is rejected by our Government almost alone among the industrialised nations of the 1990s. They do not believe that such intervention is the right approach to running an economy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South also mentioned environmental issues. Of course, I take his point about the possible draft directives which may be in

preparation at present, but we should think about using the instruments of the European Community to our advantage in environmental terms. I want to see a British Government who not only say yes to the provisions of the European Community social charter but put forward a programme for an environmental charter which provides the citizens of Europe with the right to ensure their own environmental protection. If we had a Government who wanted to play an imaginative and constructive role in the European Community, we might be able to achieve that objective. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South has raised a series of important issues.

Mr. Cryer: When we form a Government, we shall not have to wait for the Community. My hon. Friend suggested that we should have to negotiate to achieve something. It is important to recognise that we can set standards through the work of a Labour Government to which other member states can aspire if they wish. We do not have to go through a long set of complex negotiations to wait for those standards to be achieved in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right. There are many policies can can and will be implemented by a Labour Government in Britain without waiting for cross-European action, and the sooner the better. However, although action on environmental rights would be useful if carried out in Britain on its own, it would be even more useful if we could achieve a cross-European approach on these matters, because environmental pollution knows no national boundaries. Action against environmental pollution and the protection of citizens from it should cross national frontiers.
The debate also raises a number of fundamental issues about the way in which the European Community budget is currently used and how it performs. I want to draw the attention of the House briefly to three specific issues. First, there is an absolute need to continue the drive to ensure proper value for money in the spending undertaken by the Commission and by the various funds of the EC. We debated that matter all too briefly yesterday when we had the annual debate on the report of the Court of Auditors. That report reveals that there is a need for constant watchfulness about the way in which some of the programmes of the Community are monitored and undertaken. That is not to say that those programmes are not valuable—many of them are—but we must ensure that we get proper value for money within them.
Secondly, there is undoubtedly a case for looking for and continuing to press within the Community for changes to the balance within the overall Community budget between agricultural support and all other aspects of expenditure. Agriculture still gobbles up the overwhelming proportion of the Community's budget funds and the farmers at the end of the line do not benefit by anything like the amount that goes in at the start of the pipeline. There is undoubtedly a need for reform and change within the expenditure of the Community and especially within the operation of the common agricultural policy. I hope that we shall begin to see some changes, especially with the external pressure from the negotiations on the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The process of the Uruguay round may provide just the extra external


stimulus that will provide for some sensible changes in the patterns of expenditure and agricultural support with the Community.
Thirdly, we must acknowledge the growing importance within the EC budget of the regional funds, especially as economic co-operation between the 12 member countries of the Community increases. If we are to move along the road towards greater economic and monetary union within the EC, the regional funds will have a crucial part to play in ensuring that we can still have some mechanisms for addressing the imbalances between different regions of the Community.
The Opposition do not wish to see a European Community divided between its rich and poor citizens and its rich and poor regions. The principal mechanism that can and must be used to ensure that that does not happen has to be a sensible and developing use of the regional funds.
My hon. Friend has rightly and sensibly placed the issues before us. He has considerable experience from his time in Strasbourg and from his distinguished career on the ministerial Benches in the House. He has a fund of experience to bring to bear on the issues. Therefore, I am sure that he will share with me a determination not to rubbish the EC and all that is stands for, but a determination rather to make the EC work successfully and properly for the people of Britain and Europe. Labour Members have a constructive approach to the developing co-operation of Europe— we just wish that Her Majesty's Government would show the same approach, which they have not done in the past.

Mr. Maude: rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I take it that the Minister has the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Maude: If I had known that this would be such a wide-ranging debate covering almost every aspect of matters falling under the ambit of the EC, I might have been able to arrange for my hon. Friend who succeeded me as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have the pleasure of attending the House to pull together all the multifarious strands. That would have enabled a wider view to be taken than my narrow responsibilities allow and would also have enabled me to get a little more sleep. But such is life.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has brought an important matter before the House. He has taken his subject in its widest sense— the cost of EC membership to the United Kingdom. He has not adverted to or expatiated on the benefits of membership of the EC, but that is perfectly proper. However, it is always worth remembering that there are two sides to every balance sheet and he has given us only one. He has provided an account which I think it is fair to say is not impartial. He has distinct and definite views on the subject and they happen to be very different from those expounded by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). But that is a matter for them to resolve between themselves.
The Government are committed to membership of the European Community and to making it a success. That does not mean, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seems to believe, that we should roll over

and agree to everything proposed by Brussels to appear co-operative, decent, friendly and cuddly. Life is not like that. Proposals are made, we assess our broader interest and argue for it. The fact that sometimes we do so robustly shows that we are committed to membership of the Community.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South cast his net wide and referred at length to our balance of trade with the rest of the European Community. I shall not deal in detail with what he said— this is the last refuge perhaps not of the scoundrel but of Ministers in the middle of the night—as it does not fall within my responsibilities.
The performance of a country's industries in the world marketplace depends on how well they compete. In some circumstances, competition may not be fair, but the European Community has mechanisms to remedy distortions in competition. There are similar mechanisms in the GATT, which is one reason why we are so adamant that it must be improved and enhanced. We are as determined as anyone that it should be successful. An unsuccessful conclusion would strike a savage blow at the economies of the third world. The best service that we can provide is a free and open market for the goods that they are able to produce. The benefits that accrue to their economies from such market access will always vastly outweigh the benefits of direct financial aid. We should never forget that lesson.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the effects of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. I am not surprised that he is not enthusiastic about our membership, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who thinks that membership is a good idea at any time, under any conditions and in any circumstances. The Government believed that we should join when the time and conditions were right. Subsequent events have shown that we joined at the right time and at the right rate.

Mr. Chris Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Governor of the Bank of England that it was not right for the Government to reduce interest rates at the same time as joining the ERM?

Mr. Maude: That is not what the Governor of the Bank of England said. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained at length why we decided to lower interest rates when we joined the mechanism. Experience shows that that was the right decision.
The hon. Member for. Bradford, South suggested that we joined the exchange rate mechanism at the wrong rate. I assume he meant that the pound is overvalued against the deutschmark and that United Kingdom businesses that seek to export to the rest of the continent are placed at a huge disadvantage. No dispassionate analysis of the facts bears that out.
The purchasing power parity of sterling against the deutschmark throughout the last decade and more was a little above the central rate at which we joined the exchange rate mechanism, which suggests that the rate we chose was about right. If it is right that that rate places exporters at such a crashing disadvantage, it is odd that when the rate of the pound against the deutschmark last summer was significantly above what it now is exporters were doing very well, particularly in their exports to


Germany, which were booming. It is wrong to suggest that the pound is cripplingly overvalued against the deutschmark.
The hon. Gentleman disparaged the discipline that flows from membership of the exchange rate mechanism. That discipline would have flowed in any event from a firm monetary policy. He objected to the fact that that discipline applied only to trade unions and workers. It applies, however, to everyone taking decisions about the economy. The traditional soft option that accompanied—I put it no higher than that—the British economy's gradual decline, in relative terms, between the end of the last war and 1979 or thereabouts—the traditional soft option of constant devaluation and a constant decline in the value of the pound against other currencies—has gone. For British businesses to remain competitive and to improve their competitiveness, they have to improve their performance. Consequently, their costs have to be controlled. There is no easy way out. It is uncomfortable. A discipline of that nature is meant to be uncomfortable. Only if we accept and work within such a discipline shall we see sustained growth and prosperity.
May I deal with what I am bound to say I took, in my naivety, to be the main thrust of the debate—the financial cost to the United Kingdom of membership of the European Community. The hon. Member for Bradford, South properly dwelt upon that at some length. I expect our contribution to the Community to be around £1.9 billion in 1990–91 and £1.1 billion in 1991–92. The fall in next year's figure is simply because of a refund of contributions in 1990 and a higher level of abatement, reflecting adjustments to contributions in previous years. The underlying figure is about £2 billion a year. By any standards, these are substantial sums. However, they would have been vastly greater without the abatement of our contributions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs Thatcher) secured under the Fontainebleau abatement mechanism.
By the end of this year, cumulative abatement under the mechanism will have totalled almost £10 billion in addition to the £3.2 billion worth of refunds secured before the mechanism took effect. On that score alone, the United Kingdom is £13 billion better off today than we would have been if the previous contribution arrangements, so skilfully negotiated by the Labour Government in 1975, had continued to apply. A further £7.5 billion worth of abatement is forecast from 1992 to 1994.
We have a well-earned reputation throughout the Community for exercising discipline and restraint on EC budget spending. We have continued to give firm backing

to the 1988 measures to set a limit on Community own resources, to exercise budget discipline arrangements on agricultural spending and to fix medium-term expenditure ceilings in the financial perspectives that form part of the inter-institutional agreement. Within that framework, we exercise a rigorous scrutiny of budget spending, looking at it item by item and programme by programme to see where funds can usefully be directed—and where they cannot.
The arrangements negotiated in 1988, taken with our efforts to keep expenditure below the maximum levels that they imply, have so far exercised a firm discipline on Community spending. For example, the 1991 budget sets a level of payment appropriations falling more than 5 billion ecu below the ceiling implied by the own-resources decisions, despite rapidly growing structural fund spending and despite a series of unforeseen demands for expenditure associated with eastern Europe, with German unification and with the Gulf.
It remains of the utmost importance that this discipline continues. Although for a number of reasons agricultural spending since 1988 has been well below the ceiling in the financial perspective, upward pressures are developing, and it will be important to resist them. We shall encourage the Commission to take firm action by using its own management powers to curb expenditure and by a restrictive price-fixing package.
We should not, however, concentrate exclusively on levels of Community expenditure. How the money is spent and accounted for is of great importance, too. As the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said, we had the chance last night to discuss this matter in the debate on the European Court of Auditors annual report. We have already taken the leading role in seeking quantified objectives for Community programmes and in seeking stringent financial controls to ensure that money is spent properly and is effectively used. Those aims are reflected in the financial regulation of May 1990.
We also aim to underline the Community's commitment to the principles of financial management, to effective accountability and to value for money, by a series of suggested treaty amendments at the intergovernmental conference on so-called political union. These are intended to enhance scrutiny by the European Parliament, to clarify the responsibilities and duties of those concerned with financial control in Community institutions, to develop the responsibilities of the Court of Auditors and to underline member states' obligations to counter fraud.
The Community's financing arrangements are due for review at the end of this year. There will be an important set of negotiations then. In our approach to them we shall continue to be guided by the principles of budget discipline, effective accountability and value for money.

Remand Prisoners (Greater Manchester)

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: By convention, I should say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the question of the use of police cells for remand prisoners in Greater Manchester. I am not pleased, because it should never have occurred. It is my duty to raise it, but I regret that I have to do so.
I put down my name for the debate on Tuesday and on Wednesday was told that I had won a place. Since then, the chief constable of Greater Manchester has announced his retirement. I assume that that is mere coincidence. Many people in Greater Manchester are disappointed that Sir James Anderton, who is a good publicist, has not made rather more fuss about remand prisoners being held in police cells for such a long time. One or two people feel that it is not just coincidence that he got his knighthood this year, and that that has encouraged him to say rather less about the scandal than he might otherwise have done. I wish him well in his retirement, but I hope that by the time he comes to hang up his truncheon and put his whistle away in June he will have sorted out this problem.
The issue has gone on for far too long. I have: tabled eight or nine parliamentary questions on the subject and on two occasions I have had private meetings with Ministers to get assurances that something was being done. I am disappointed that those assurances have not been fulfilled. It is a scandal and an outrage that people are being held in the appalling conditions of some of the police cells in Greater Manchester when they have not been convicted of any crime. A lot more should have been done to ensure that this situation did not continue. At least one of the police cells about which I know is no bigger than the Treasury table in the front of the Chamber, and sometimes as many as three prisoners are held in that space.
The whole situation developed out of the Strangeways riot last Easter. The media was concerned about that, but once the rioting stopped they took little trouble to follow up the continuing problems. No one could have complained about the fact that in May, about 1,000 prisoners had to be held either in police cells in Greater Manchester, Cheshire, Lancashire, West Yorkshire, and even one or two places further afield. We all accepted that there was a crisis and that something had to be done about it. What worries me, many people in Greater Manchester and many middle-ranking policemen, is why the Home Office did not take steps at that stage to make sure that the problem was solved within a short time.
If it were possible, with a stroke of the pen, for the Home Office to make arrangements for the internment of Iraqi citizens in an Army camp, why was it not able to take rapid action to assess the problems with the building at Strangeways and the problems that were likely to ensue, and to find temporary accommodation suitable for holding remand prisoners, rather than allowing the situation to continue for months without a satisfactory solution?
It must have been obvious to the Home Office—it certainly was when I spoke to the then Minister with responsibility for prisons, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) in June—that the situation had to be resolved quickly. He was talking then in terms of about 500 prisoners each week in June being

held in police cells. The answer that I got showed that on 1 June there were 505, on 8 June 551, on 15 June 574, on 22 June 569 and on 29 June 581.
So the Minister was aware of the extent to which prisoners were being held. It was perhaps a little disingenuous of him to claim that everything would be all right by September, when the remand wing of Strangeways would be back in operation and the problem of prisoners being held in police cells would disappear. The Minister must have known that at that stage the planned capacity for the remand wing, which was to be reopened, was not sufficient to take away the 500 from police cells. In addition to the 500 in Manchester, others were held in Cheshire, Lancashire and West Yorkshire. The Minister must have known that the police cells would have to be used for much longer.
Police cells are not suitable for remand prisoners. Indeed, some of the cells are appalling. Stockport police station, for example, is an unfortunate building. The old Stockport police force wanted a new police headquarters. It made an application to the Home Office and was told that it could have half a police station as a first phase. Half a new police station was built in Stockport in the 1960s. As the second half was not built, there remains only half a station. It is an extremely cramped building. The charge room and the cells off it are exceptionally small. On a Thursday, Friday or Saturday night, the cells are overcrowded with those who have to be brought in, arrested, charged and held overnight before they can appear in court. In addition to the people brought to the station in those circumstances, it has been necessary to cater for six, seven and— sometimes— up to 10 remand prisoners.
There is a similar situation at Cheadle Hulme, which is the other police station at Stockport. Cheadle Hulme police station would make a good exhibit for a museum, but it is entirely unsuitable for present-day working. To hold prisoners in such cramped conditions is unacceptable.
The cells at Stockport police station are little more than cages. There are two rows of cells facing each other. There is a small square at the end of the rows— it is on the first floor— with a wall around it that is about seven or eight feet high. Over the top of the square there is a wire mesh. That is the exercise area. A prisoner has no opportunity to see the outside area. That provision is entirely unsatisfactory.
Apart from the cramped conditions that apply at Stockport, Cheadle Hulme and many of the other old police stations in Greater Manchester, there is an adverse effect on the police officers who have to work in such conditions. I admit, however, that one or two of the junior officers are rather pleased to get on what they call container duty. They work a 12-hour shift while looking after the prisoners and overtime rates are paid. That helps some of them out considerably with their financial problems. I notice how generous the Home Office is in paying overtime rates in these circumstances. It is a pity that it has been unable to spend the same sort of money on finding a permanent solution to the problem of accommodating remand prisoners.
Although container duty is rather popular with some of the younger officers—they are able to earn overtime rates without having to face a football crowd or to walk around during a cold night on the streets—it is not good for them. First, they get used to spending their overtime payments.


Secondly, I suspect that some of them become rather tired and perhaps do not perform the rest of their normal police duties quite as well as they otherwise would.
Container duty in Manchester is taking up the time of senior police officers who are required to organise the activity. It is having a considerable effect on other police activities within Greater Manchester. It is difficult to obtain exact information, but I suspect that on occasions the police have not been able to execute warrants to make arrest with the same vigour that would have been their practice in the past because they know that if they bring someone in on a warrant they will not have the space to accommodate that person. That is disturbing.
During the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill I pressed Ministers for information about how quickly they were chasing up probation defaulters. Again, I suspect that in Greater Manchester there has been a failure to chase some of them up quickly because the police did not feel that they had the necessary prison cell accommodation for the people if they carried out that duty. No police will admit that that is happening, but if the Home Office were to look into it, I think that it would find that that is one unsatisfactory aspect of the overcrowding of cells.
Because of the conditions in the smaller, more cramped police stations, there has not been an opportunity in Greater Manchester to find ways to ease the burden for police officers of all the paperwork that resulted from the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I am enthusiastic about developments such as the tape recording of interviews, the accurate recording of the entry of prisoners into police stations and quick detailing of charges, but I am amazed that in this modern age police officers still have to type routine charges on old-fashioned typewriters when so much of the work could be done automatically by pressing one key on a good word processor, as would happen in any modern office. Because of the cramped conditions in which the police have to operate, I think that there has been reluctance in Greater Manchester to get on with sensible mechanisation of much of the paperwork.
There is also the problem of what I might describe as the roundabout. Because the police cells are not suitable for people to be kept in them for any length of time, prisoners are continually being moved from one set of cells to another. That is done partly to reduce the chances of their escaping and partly to prevent them from becoming too friendly with people in one police station. When they go to court, they are sent to different police cells, and so it goes on.
It is difficult for the prisoners to cope with being moved around. Probation officers and solicitors have also had trouble in tracking down prisoners in order to carry out visits. The problem has eased slightly as they have gradually learnt to cope with it. Prisoners have very little opportunity to think about the consequences of their actions and to decide whether they will plead guilty or will be able to defend themselves.
It is very difficult for the families and friends of prisoners to visit them. The visiting facilities in Stockport in particular are completely inadequate. Chief Superintendent Whittle, who is in charge at Stockport, does a very good job, but he has admitted to me that the only way that he can make conditions tolerable for the

prisoners and their families is by trying to make visits as long as possible. He gives prisoners the advantage of longer visits than they would have in a remand prison to try to compensate them for the difficult conditions. Often the visits have to be interrupted if another prisoner has to be brought in or taken out, or if a solicitor or probation officer wants to see a prisoner.
The position is also unsatisfactory for probation officers and solicitors. Those conditions make it difficult for a solicitor to speak frankly to his client, to persuade him, for example, that it would not be worth while to present a defence, but better to enter a guilty plea. They also make it difficult for a probation officer to obtain all the personal details that he needs to prepare a report for the court.
The Minister will be aware of the escape that was made from one of those police cells. That incident has remained in the minds of the police officers ever since, which has also led to substantial difficulties. There have been other eye-openers, with police officers being surprised at the attempts that even remand prisoners make to get drugs smuggled into their cells.
There has also been a great deal of temporary work undertaken. I make no complaint about that. The installation of a shower at Stockport police station and of toilet screens at Denton was very worth while.
Problems also arise in the provision of meals. The Home Office seems to assume that hot meals are available in all the police stations in Greater Manchester, but even where there are canteens, they are only open during the week, so at weekends it is necessary to send out for meals for Stockport prisoners from one of the Cheadle hospitals— and the meals are anything but hot by the time they arrive.
If those conditions had existed only from May until September, one would be unhappy, but tolerant. The promise was made that as soon as Strangeways remand wing reopened in September, all the problems would go away. Delays in completing the building delayed the reopening, and in October and November there was a dispute between prison officers and the Home Office, causing further delay well into November.
I was pleased to hear eventually during Question Time that the differences between the officers and the Home Office had been resolved, and that the remand wing would soon reopen. Therefore, when I spoke to Chief Superintendent White of Tameside police, in the other half of my constituency, I was horrified to learn that the problem had been only partly solved. The number of prisoners in police cells had fallen from 500 to 200 or 300. I was told that 210 remand prisoners and 73 convicted prisoners were being held in Greater Manchester police cells.
Chief Superintendent White said that the problem was becoming so bad that consideration was being given to bringing back into use the cells at Denton police station, which is a late Victorian or early Edwardian building. Anyone looking for an old police station to feature in a cinema or TV film should given it serious consideration— but it is totally inadeqauate for the purpose of holding prisoners in this day and age. Money is being spent on bringing that station back into use, to hold anything up to 12 prisoners. I am appalled at the prospect that it may have to be deployed for another 12 or 18 months and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that its use will be ended quickly.
There is some good news from Stockport, because, as its police station is unsatisfactory in many respects, the Home Office agreed to a major refurbishment. I wish that it would agree to build the second phase or a completely new station. Nevertheless, I understand that from 22 April no remand prisoners will be held at Stockport or Cheadle Hulme because of that refurbishment programme. That simply means that more of those prisoners will have to be held in the rest of the out-of-date, inadequate police cell accommodation within Greater Manchester.
It is not merely a question of people being held for a few hours. They are being held there day and night, seven days a week, and soon they will have been held in those conditions for up to 12 months. We must remember that, sadly, some of those prisoners are on remand for long periods of time. We must also consider that there were more than 70 convicted prisoners. How on earth can anyone be trying to develop some form of plan for those prisoners, so that they serve their imprisonment usefully, if they are being shuttled from one police station to another?
I understand that some of the senior police officers have been trying to do the best by these prisoners. I heard of one prisoner who was skilled in painting and decorating and was allowed to do some painting within the police station. I believe that some of the senior police officers tried to get educational materials for the prisoners, but they are not trained to do that sort of thing. At this stage, we ought to be told that the Home Office will stop it. The overcrowding is unsatisfactory, it is stopping the police from doing their proper work and there is always a risk of escapes.
I am also told that there is still a dispute between the Home Office and the prison officers, who say that because of the state of Strangeways its remand wing is only suitable for what they term "nice" remand prisoners. The difficult remand prisoners, who behave in socially unacceptable ways, are not suitable to be put back in the remand wing at Strangeways and have to be contained in police cells. They are the sort of people who excrete on the floor, pick up the excrement and throw it around. That is totally unsuitable anywhere, but it is especially unsuitable in police cells and it presents major problems for other people who are brought into the cells, some of whom may be detained there not because they have committed any crime, but for their own protection. Visits are extremely difficult if there is an anti-social and disturbed prisoner in one of the cells.
All that is costing the Home Office a fantastic amount of money. I am grateful that the Home Office has agreed to reimburse Greater Manchester police for the extra work. I hope that they are getting the full costs. Why on earth is the Home Office paying out money? Could it not have paid it out for more satisfactory accommodation? There were many prison warders at Strangeways running the old prison and the police keep asking what are they doing now. Why was it not possible for those prison warders to be moved to some other building in Greater Manchester? They could look after a larger proportion of the remand prisoners so that they do not have to be kept in police cells.
One could say, cynically, that one of the good effects is that so far there have not been any suicides. The prisoners are in such cramped conditions that suicide would be virtually impossible. However, the long-term impact on many of those prisoners must be horrendous. There is little or no opportunity for peace and quiet to come to terms with their position.
I believe that one of the other implications is that the police have probably been offering bail to more people because they do not have room to keep them in the police station. If that encourages the issuing of police bail, and if it has encouraged the police not to oppose bail on occasions, perhaps we can reduce the number of people held in custody in police stations.
Will the Minister tell us how long this situation will go on and how much it has cost the public? Perhaps he could also tell us whether the Home Office did an estimate in May of the cost of finding some alternative accommodation then and using prison warders rather than police officers. I hope that the Minister will tell us that, when all this is finished, the Home Office will be able to pay Greater Manchester police enough to refurbish most of the police cells, which have taken quite a hammering. I hope that he will also tell us that he will examine the issues of mechanising, and that of the recording of information under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, so that many police officers can be relieved of the routine tasks of writing out statements and charge sheets at length and can use modern facilities. I hope that he will say that he is examining the question of breach of probation and that such breaches are being taken up vigorously. It discredits the whole probation service if no enforcement takes place when probation orders are breached. I also hope that the Minister can assure me that the serving of warrants in Greater Manchester is not being delayed because of a lack of cells.
The present position cannot continue. Greater Manchester needs a clear undertaking from the Home Office that by April—or May at the latest—all remand prisoners will be removed from police cells and that no convicted prisoners will be held there. They must be removed not only from police cells in Manchester but from cells belonging to the surrounding police forces. Although I do not know the details, I understand that major problems still exist there.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I well understand why the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has taken the trouble to raise this important subject, even at such an early hour.
There is no doubt that the continued use of police cells to hold prisoners who should be in prison service accommodation is a continuing source of grave concern. Like the hon. Gentleman, the Government regard the present state of affairs as unacceptable; nor do they rely on police cells as a routine source of extra accommodation. The Imprisonment (Temporary Provisions) Act 1980 was passed by Parliament to cope with the lengthy prison officers' dispute of that year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Act allows the police to hold prisoners if, for any reason, it is not practicable to secure their admission to an establishment.
Prisoners have frequently had to be held in police cells in recent years, sometimes because of such periods of industrial action by prison officers and at other times because not enough prison spaces have been available. That applied especially in London and the south-east, where the prison estate simply could not cope with the numbers involved. Pressure was particularly great in local prisons and remand centres; but new accommodation


began to come onstream as part of the Government's prison-building programme and there was a welcome fall in the number of people in custody. As a result, by the beginning of 1990 police cells were used only in very exceptional circumstances. However, following the disturbance at Manchester last April, more than 1,600 places were lost to the system. It was not possible to accommodate the inmates displaced by that loss of accommodation immediately in other prison service establishments. The situation was made more difficult by action by prison officers at other establishments, who were unwilling to take Manchester inmates because it would lead to overcrowding in their own prisons.
Although the long-term use of police cells now appears endemic, it is not. The Government's investment in new prison accommodation had begun to pay off and, had it not been for the Strangeways incident and the loss of accommodation in the north-west, we would not be in our present position.
It may be helpful if I explain one of the principal constraints. It is certainly one that was implied in the speech of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. It is true that during much of the period in question while we have had so many Manchester prison prisoners in police cells there have been spaces elsewwhere in the prison estate. The difficulty that we face is that the loss of accommodation in Manchester was loss of local prison accommodation. Local prisons hold a proportion of sentenced inmates, but their primary function is to service the courts by holding prisoners remanded in custody and those awaiting trial. In order for local prisons to perform this function they must be close to the courts that they serve. It is therefore not possible to use prison places in other parts of the country.
There is, of course, local accommodation available within reasonable travelling distance from the Manchester courts, and it was certainly our intention to use such accommodation, notwithstanding the logistical difficulties that it would pose. It is obviously far better for us to keep inmates in our own accommodation even if that means extensive escorting journeys to and from courts. It is here that the industrial action to which I have referred has obstructed us.
There is no doubt that other local prisons in the vicinity— for example, Liverpool— are overcrowded, but there have been spaces within the operational capacity— that is interpreted as the overcrowded capacity— of such establishments which we have wanted to use.
I do not underestimate in any way the concern to which the April disturbances gave rise and that anxiety is particularly acute in the north-west of England where both Risley and Manchester have seen major disturbances and acts of gross violence and vandalism. But however sympathetic one may be to the concerns of staff, the plain fact of the matter is that their unwillingness to accept Manchester prisoners from outside their court catchment areas has led directly to a large number of remand prisoners being held, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, in entirely unsatisfactory conditions and to the police being diverted from more productive work.
That inevitable places a considerably burden on police resources and especially manpower, and I quite agree with what the hon. Member said about that. We are determined

that the police should not have to shoulder such a burden for longer than is absolutely necessary. I take this opportunity to place on record my sincere appreciation of the work of the police, and that of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and of the prisons Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs Rumbold), who regrets that she cannot be here this morning to answer the debate as she is in Brussels on ministerial duty.
The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to meetings with the previous prisons Minister, and I say now, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, that she would be very pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss any points that may arise from this debate and which I am not in a position to answer.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am grateful for that offer, but I would just like to tell the Minister that what I want now is some action. The trouble with the previous meetings was that I was promised that something would happen, yet it just keeps dragging on. I shall be very pleased to see the Minister next week, but I hope that the Minister here tonight will convey to her that what I want, either now or then, is an assurance that by the end of April this practice will stop.

Mr. Lloyd: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister wants to see a solution just as much as, if not more than, the hon. Gentleman. Having explained the background and having indicated that one of the major problems is the attitude of prison officers in establishments to which some of these remand prisoners might have been moved, I want to explain what we are doing to solve the problem in a measurable period of time.
We recognise the heavy load that has been placed on the police. We see this is a matter which needs to be dealt with as expeditiously as possible. I will now deal with the remedy for the problem. As I have explained, 1,600 prison places were lost at Strangeways, but an extensive refurbishment programme has been undertaken to bring back quickly as much of that accommodation as we can. As a first step, about 200 refurbished places came on stream in December.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the prison was picking and choosing which "nice remand prisoners" it should take. There are no constraints on who goes into Strangeways. There were allegations that it was picking and choosing who should go there, but the police are now deciding whom to deliver to the prison. The prison authorities are not selecting; they will take whomever is brought to them.
The prison service took the opportunity of the additional 200 places and the short-term breathing space offered by the pre-Christmas fall in the overall prison population to secure a significant reduction in the numbers in police cells. The prison estate in the north-west was reorganised. Preston prison became a local prison receiving prisoners from all courts in Lancashire. Changes were made at Liverpool so that that prison could take inmates from all courts in Cheshire. As a result, the only prisoners now in police cells are those who have appeared in court in Manchester itself.
The prison service has sought to maximise the use of training prison places, ensuring that closed establishments


are not unnecessarily retaining inmates who are appropriate for open conditions, and so freeing closed prison places for those who are being held in police cells.
The effect of all that activity was a significant reduction in police cell remands. At the beginning of November, the number in police cells was more than 1,000; by the end of December, it had fallen to below 500. However, since that time there has been a further difficulty. Although the prison population over the last year or so has been stable, in recent months there has been a surge in the overall level of the population. On 2 January the population stood at 43,458; on 1 March it had grown to 45,356.
Against that background, the prison service is adopting the following strategy. First, and most important, it continues to keep training prisons— that is, prisons holding sentenced prisoners, and which do not serve the courts— at higher levels of occupancy. The training estate is now running at about 97 per cent. occupancy which, given that that figure includes open prisons, is a very high level indeed. Priority is being given to two target groups of prisoners in police cells— sentenced adults and young offenders on remand.
A sizeable proportion of the inmate population in police cells is actually sentenced. In the normal course of events, when a prisoner is tried, found guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment, he or she returns to the local prison and is addressed by an observation, categorisation and allocation— OCA—unit. Those prison staff make the difficult decision of the security category that should apply to the inmate and the establishment to which he or she should be allocated to serve the sentence imposed by the court. It has, of course, been necessary for Manchester OCA staff to undertake that work not in one place in Manchester prison, but in numerous police stations across the north of England. That has led to a large backlog of work and some inmates have had to spend a long time in police cells even though they have been sentenced. A prison governor, assisted by two escort teams, is now working with the police to tackle that problem. As far as possible, sentenced inmates are now being concentrated in a few locations so that they can be more readily moved to training prisons.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the Minister confirm that currently there are 70 to 80 convicted prisoners in police cells in the Greater Manchester area? How soon will that practice stop?

Mr. Lloyd: I can confirm that there are convicted prisoners, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the exact number. As I have said, the problem is to interview, categorise, and then determine the prison to which the prisoners should be sent. That is difficult when they are spread between police cells, rather than concentrated in one remand prison where they would have been had the spaces been available. As a further measure in the light of the recent population surge, the prison service has brought back into use accommodation taken out for non-essential refurbishment.
In the south, we are changing the role of the Mount prison from a young offender institution to a category C adult training prison. I am glad to say that that activity is nearly complete and 484 cellular category C places should shortly be available. Coupled with this, a new local prison in London, Belmarsh, will shortly be coming on stream with 841 new prison places. That should bring

considerable relief in the south and, indeed, can be used to have an indirect effect on the north-west. We should be able to achieve this by enabling midlands local prisons to allocate sentenced prisoners to training places in the south. That in turn should enable midlands training prisons to receive inmates from the north.
The top priority in the north of England is to get young men on remand out of police cells. The crucial structural obstacle to this is the lack of capacity in the north-west for young men under the age of 21 remanded in custody or committed for trial. Substantial numbers of these were held in Strangeways, but now it is necessary for us to rely on Hindley, which is simply too small for the task.
The position will be resolved completely when a new young offender institution and remand centre— Brinsford in Staffordshire— comes on stream in October. That will give 475 new places. The task between now and then is to make a temporary arrangement for remand and trial prisoners. Prison service management has explored urgently the possibility of converting other nearby establishments for this use. Both Werrington and Thorn Cross were considered, but it is clear that either of those options would require substantial building work. In any event, Werrington is required for juveniles. For the immediate purpose we have in mind, they are quite simply non-starters.
The only short-term option available, therefore, is to create more space in Hindley. In the time available that could not be achieved by building. Instead, action is in hand to transfer out of Hindley young men who are awaiting trial who do not require the frequent escorting to and from court that is necessary in respect of remand prisoners. We hope to release space by transferring these pre-trial prisoners to another establishment, in the first instance Stoke Heath. Stoke Heath is the establishment which takes from Hindley sentenced inmates and allocates them to the training young offender institutions around the country. In turn, young men in Stoke Heath who are serving sentences will require to be transferred even further afield.
The next priority is the clearing of sentenced adults. New arrangements being made with the police will enable larger numbers of sentenced adults in police cells than before to be available for transfer to training prisons. But the recent surge in population, coupled with the large number of places now out of use for essential refurbishment to provide integral sanitation, has meant that fewer training places are being offered for this purpose than we would wish. That leads to even more emphasis being placed on the need to get nearly 200 new places at Full Sutton on stream as soon as possible, and we are working to do that.
The number of adult prisoners on trial or remanded in custody will reduce considerably when the next phase of accommodation at Manchester comes on stream. Some 140 extra refurbished places will be handed over in May and we want to minimise the commissioning period for that accommodation. I am also pleased to say that following lengthy negotiations with the local branch of the Prison Officers Association, Liverpool prison has agreed to take from the beginning of next week 60 prisoners hitherto held in Manchester police cells. Those will comprise some sentenced prisoners and some prisoners on trial. We greatly welcome this important step.
The effect of these changes should be to achieve a further, very significant reduction in our use of police cells,


provided, of course, there is not a further late surge in the overall prison population. The overall picture will in any event change radically later in the year as 2,500 places in new establishments come on stream between April and October. Of course, apart from Brinsford which I have already mentioned, the most significant will be 649 young offender and remand places at Moorland near Doncaster in July.
I hope that it is clear from this complex explanation of our policy that this is far from being a problem that is easy to resolve. I hope also that it is clear that vigorous and ingenious action has been and is being taken to deal with this problem. There is no lack of commitment by the Government and we shall shortly be seeing very significant improvements in the system as a result of the building programme. The problem at Manchester has been so severe because we lost local prison accommodation. Local prisons have for very many years borne the brunt of overcrowding. That situation should be behind us over the next few years when 10 local prisons and remand centres will come on stream, beginning next month with Belmarsh in London. While we wait for these new places to become available the prison service will continue to make the fullest use of the prison estate so as to minimise the use of police cells.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much will that cost? Will the Home Office be able to refurbish the police cells in Greater Manchester which have taken such a hammering in the past 12 months?

Mr. Lloyd: I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman on that question because I do not know what plans my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me the opportunity to put on record the points that I have made. I agree that the problem demands attention, but I hope that he agrees that the permanent solution that he calls for is in train.

Northern Ireland (Political Developments)

Mr. Harry Barnes: It is appropriate for us to discuss political developments in Northern Ireland because in parliamentary terms it is still Thursday, so today we have seen the release of the Birmingham Six and an announcement at Question Time by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about a timetable for talks with the political parties and various other interests. However, I appreciate that the Minister might not wish to go into too much detail on those matters when he replies because they are sensitive and some details cannot be given because some of the talks are behind closed doors. They develop in stages at which something else can be said and the points can be developed.
The two events earlier today raise, as always with Northern Ireland, issues of security, although in this case it is security associated with a miscarriage of justice. They also raise the subject of. constitutional reform, as presumably devolved government is on the agenda for the first stage of discussion.
I wish to raise some extra items in this debate and to stress the economic and social background of the conditions in Northern Ireland. The adverse circumstances often act as a breeding ground for sectarianism. I also want to stress the willingness of more and more people in Northern Ireland courageously to stand up against terror and intimidation and the need for Northern Ireland to develop what could be called a more normal political scene based on the politics of class division rather than the current sectarian divisions. I shall develop that point at greater length than the other two points, which I shall touch on later.
Although I argue for the relevance of democratic socialism to Ireland, both north and south, I begin by referring to a definition of democracy which was once often quoted in political theory. It is the definition of Schumpeter in a book that he wrote in 1944 called "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy." Schumpeter was an advocate of capitalism. He thought that democracy went together with it. He was a pessimist because he thought that socialism would take over. He feared that socialism would be undemocratic, which it does not have to be. Nor does it have to be based on the experiences in eastern Europe.
Schumpeter's definition of democracy is useful as a framework for the debate. He defined democracy as essentially a competitive struggle for people's votes, rather like competition in the marketplace between capitalists in a market economy for goods and services. The classical points used in favour of that system begin to be related to democratic institutions. It is rather cold, mechanistic definition of democracy and it has a bias within it— it is not value free. It stresses points, with which the Government might have sympathy, about democratic capitalism. The definition omits the spirit and norms of democracy in which civil liberties, a concern for others and a collective concern for the public good need to play a considerable part.
Such a form of democracy is very much a part of democratic socialism. Competition for votes works better when there is competition between political organisations. I should hope that they would be socialist parties. Some might argue for centralism and some for decentralisation,


but they would share a libertarian and collectivist viewpoint. Those views need not necessarily be incompatible.
We often have to put up with second-best democracy—a halfway house to the democracy that I have described—especially in a capitalist society or in a mixed economy in which the major parties divide essentially on class lines, although there may be a consensus about the democratic methods that should be employed.
The advantage of class divisions within a democratic system is that, at least in theory, they are subject to temporary compromises on divisions of interest, which allow a temporary position to be reached after which the parties can manoeuvre and hassle for their interests at a further stage. If, for example, a trade union puts in a wage demand for £10 a week and the employers do not wish to pay that, a compromise of £5 is often reached. Nobody is especially satisfied with that, but it allows people to keep the game going.
In a book called "In Defence of Politics", Bernard Crick defined such politics as being about the reconciliation of conflicting interests. That form of politics is distorted when topics that are alien to reaching temporary compromises and reconciliation begin to dominate. There have been violent disputes in countries such as Belgium where language division cuts across the normal class divisions.
The problems in Ireland are considerable. The politics of Fianna Fail and of Fine Gael are shaped by the civil war. It is as if an unnatural development has taken place in Northern Ireland. The two parties have emerged, rather than there being a left-right conflict such as we have in the British system. That has been nurtured by continued feelings about Northern Ireland and by articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which claim that Northern Ireland should be included within Ireland.
In Northern Ireland, those events have led to the classical unionist-nationalist tradition, which distorts class divisions considerably. In the heyday of single-party unionism and nationalism, the dominant body has been the unionists. Class interests and the elite of capitalism have often been associated with unionism rather than with nationalist interests. That has meant that the normal hassle between capital and labour has not emerged fully because, to gain a slightly advantageous position, part of labour has associated itself with the unionists rather than with the nationalists, who do not owe the same loyalty to the Province.
Another distortion of normal politics in capitalist or mixed economies arises when major parties are merely capitalist, as they tend to be in the United States, and as I fear is increasingly the case in Britain, where the distinction tends to be between two varieties of parties which accept general norms and values. I do not think that that is entirely lost in this particular system, but some of my fears are shared by publications such as those by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller).
If the type of system that is strong in America develops, possessive individualism will dominate, with private affluence on one side and poverty and public squalor on the other. Democratic socialism is particularly appropriate to democratic systems. Nevertheless, some healthy possibilities are developing in Northern Ireland politics— sometimes outside the Province, but nevertheless having an impact on it.
In Ireland there has been the election of Mary Robinson as President. That was partly a fluke, because of some problems that Fianna Fail was having at the time, but it enabled her, at her inaugural address, to talk about a victory and having tackled the faded flags of the civil war. Out of that have come the politics of Fianna Fail and Fianna Gael and the Sinn Fein tradition which is still strong in Northern Ireland.
In addition, there are electoral signs in Ireland of the Irish Labour party and the Workers' party providing the alternative which is healthy and necessary within a democracy. That will have its own impact on the other two political parties, some of whose ground it will have to take if they are to survive. There are also changes in Great Britain. We may be experiencing the death throes of Thatcherism. Certainly some political change is on the horizon, either within the Conservative party or following a general election. A different agenda is developing. All that is healthy for Northern Ireland because of the economic and social consequences that follow from it.
Unfortunately, Northern Ireland is stuck with a divided unionism between the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party— nevertheless a unionism—and a divided nationalism between the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein. The SDLP is very much what its name suggests—a social democratic party, not particularly a democratic socialist party, but suggesting slight shifts in the agenda which point in a leftward direction, for too much has been set upon one of the communities in Northern Ireland.
There is little representation, even at local government level, of any other political parties. Both the major groups need to be pulled beyond the sectarian divide that they often fight and struggle within and which, for their own electoral advantage, they are to a large extent bound by.
In Northern Ireland, normal class politics is a minority activity of the Alliance and the Workers' parties, and I do not see that present developments in the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, or the possible future establishment of the Labour party there, would provide any magic answers to overcome the conundrum. There would merely be the extra minor element that they could not get into the political system.
Moves that undermine sectarianism will amend the nature of party politics. They will either change the nature of the current political parties or create opportunities for other parties. On some issues, such as student loans, Ulster Unionists and the SDLP forget their divisions. All the parties in Northern Ireland, except the Conservative party, opposed student loans.
Unionist and SDLP Members complain about the worst effects of the enterprise culture such as the closure of hospitals, yet they often troop through the Lobby with the Government. On the other hand, the speeches of Northern Ireland politicians show that different views are forced on them by their electorate.
The more that change in southern Ireland makes that country less worrying to Northern Ireland Protestants and the more that change in Northern Ireland makes it less worrying to Catholics throughout the island of Ireland, the more the politics of Ireland and Northern Ireland will change. That was probably the aim of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which mistakenly was concluded without the prior acceptance and involvement of Northern Ireland Protestants.
A factor for change in Northern Ireland is the overcoming of the enterprise culture. That must be strongly pursued because Northern Ireland suffers from many problems. The scourge of unemployment is massive and long lingering. Privatisation, which often increases unemployment, is particularly inappropriate for Northern Ireland. The Ports Bill will destroy port trusts such as that in Londonderry. Such ports are held in trust for the community and are part of communal provision that should be allowed to continue.
A further factor for change is the logic of collective cross-party and non-party activity in Northern Ireland. Several groups are challenging the terrorism of extreme Protestant groups, the IRA and other extreme republican groups and the over-reaction of state and security forces. New Consensus has three groups operating in Northern Ireland, Ireland and in this country opposing terror and intimidation. A specific group organised by Nancy Gracey in Downpatrick is called Families Against Intimidation and Terror. It opposes sectarian violence and is concerned about the role of the state. It says that Amnesty International and other civil liberties organisations concentrate on state violence, whereas about 90 per cent. of violence in Northern Ireland is perpetrated by paramilitary organisations which use intimidation and crude devices such as knee capping.
The peace train organisations run trains between Dublin and Belfast to show that the IRA threatens people, as it has in this country in terms of train services, in a quite unreasonable way. Those organisations attract support from a wide spectrum of party-political involvement and from people who have no connection with political parties. The trade unions are attempting to overcome many of the problems and have mounted campaigns such as "Hands off my mate."
Given the long haul before there is any change in Irish politics—there are no easy solutions—and a shift to a normality that has never been known in the democratic era of Irish politics, boundary questions, constitutional issues, terrorism and sectarianism can then be tackled in the best way—democratically. If democracy is to flourish, more than a mechanism is needed; the values and concerns that I have stressed must be nurtured.
No one ought more strongly to urge the need for social conditions for democracy in Northern Ireland than democratic, socialists. Terror and intimidation will thereby be undermined. In no way should we condone them.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) for raising such an important topic at this hour of the morning. Occasionally it is useful to turn away from the immediate problems of a particular sectarian or terrorist outrage, and even from the day-to-day manoeuvrings connected with what is euphemestically known as the Brooke initiative, and to look instead at the longer term and at my hon. Friend's analysis, as he sees it, of the situation in Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend began by mentioning two particular matters— the Birmingham Six and the Brooke initiative. All of us must welcome the release of the Birmingham Six.

My only regret is that no word of compassion was uttered by Government Ministers about what happened to those men over the years. No Minister appeared to be able to say, "I'm sorry." No one on the Government side commended the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) during his campaign.
As for the Secretary of State's initiative and the statement that he made earlier today, the House will welcome the fact that the Taoiseach of the Republic has accepted the message sent to him and the Secretary of State's document. We must hope that the other parties to the discussions will be able to do so, too. They will have to look carefully at what is involved, but if in holy week the Secretary of State is able to say that all the parties have indicated their acceptance, that will start a new chapter in dealing with some of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.
I do not intend to deal with all my hon. Friend's analyses. I do not necessarily accept all of them. I understand, however, his interpretation of history and the current situation. I think that he is right to point to some of the important developments in Northern Ireland outside the institutions of political parties and government. Some have been helped by the Government; others have been helped by voluntary organisations within society. The Minister of State is here to deal with a matter concerning which he deserves some praise. I rarely praise Tory Ministers. I hope, therefore, that he will note down the time and the date.
The work that has been done in the education programme for mutual understanding is of the utmost importance, as is the work that has resulted in cross-school relations between the voluntary and state sectors, within the integrated education sector. One of the best ways of overcoming fear is to learn about what the other side stands for and believes in. That does not undercut existing loyalties or threaten previously held positions. It is enriching to learn about those whose opinions one has not really examined before. The experience does not water down people's own beliefs and they should not fear it. It should cause them to re-examine their own positions and to realise that in the island of Ireland there are competing traditions and loyalties.
An important event that has received some recognition in the Republic and in the north, but not here, was the agreement between the two Ministers responsible for education. The glossy document that they launched in Dublin, concerning what was happening in Europe and in Ireland at the time of the battle of the Boyne, and what that battle meant to the different traditions and parties, was significant.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the Anglo-Irish Agreement. This is not the time to attempt a treatise on its origins, but it encompassed an acceptance by the Government and parties of the Republic of the fact that there was a distinct unionist tradition in the north, with a life and origin of its own— separate from this island. That tradition does not exist on the apron strings of successive British Governments; it has a vibrancy and organic growth of its own in the island of Ireland. That recognition, too, was significant.
The agreement also recognised that there is a powerful nationalist tradition in the north which is worthy of respect and encouragement. Whatever else one thinks of the agreement, it signified recognition by the two


Governments of the legitimacy of the two separate traditions and of their right to encouragement and respect—another factor of the utmost importance.
Despite the aberrant attitude of the Government to Glor na Gael there has been a recognition of the role of the Irish language as an entity which belongs to both traditions. It should be revered, resuscitated and encouraged. It represents a unifying strand between the two traditions. Old languages under threat contain much human emotion, passion and tradition. They should not be maintained artificially by being rammed down people's throats; they should be kept alive by encouraging those who want to use them to work and be educated m the language, and by assuring them that they will then have a role to play. It is sometimes forgotten that the first major printed book in Irish was issued by the Presbyterians in Belfast.
My hon. Friend spoke about Families Against Intimidation and Terror. Often, the work of the voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland is not recognised here, although they work in our constituencies as well. I pay tribute to the fact that Mr. Quintin Oliver, chairman of the voluntary sector, has been offered, and has accepted, a post on the council of the President of the Republic. That was a tremendous gesture by the President and it showed an understanding of the position of the voluntary sector not just in the north, but throughout the island of Ireland.
This sector is of particular importance in Northern Ireland. It brings together communities from Shankill and the Falls, from the Waterside and the Bogside, from rural Ireland and from urban Ireland. It brings together people from both communities who suffer those afflictions that do not ask what tradition a person belongs to before they strike him. That includes multiple sclerosis among many other diseases. It also brings together people involved in cultural activities—music, literature, history; all matters of great importance. They enrich any society, but in the circumstances of Northern Ireland, they have an even greater role to play. They do not challenge people about whence they came or demand to know what their hopes and aspirations are. They recognise only common humanity.
It would be wrong not to mention a greater voluntary organisation that exists throughout the island of Ireland, but particularly the north—the trade unions. Unfortunately, under the dispensation of the Government, trade unions have not been recognised for the role that they play in our society. They have waged various important campaigns in the north—the most recent called, "Hands off my mate"—to keep sectarianism and terrorism off the factory floor, out of the shops, and out of industry and commerce. They have not always been successful, but they have made tremendous efforts.
My union has seen many casualties. Bus drivers have been killed, shop stewards have been killed for no other reason than that they were Protestant, and some of our members were killed at Enniskillen. These people have sought to do what my hon. Friend has recommended—identify each other by class, so as to defend their interests and enhance opportunities for themselves, their families and their communities. The trade unions in Northern Ireland have played a long, commendable and honourable role in the troubles that have beset the island. They have also sought, through cross-border co-operation and membership of the Irish Congress of Trades Unions, to create an understanding in the Republic of the problems of

working people in the north and to make the argument about the future of the island of Ireland on an all-Ireland basis.
The trade unions have also argued the point made by many, including the Labour party, that problems will affect the island of Ireland as a result of 1992, and they have highlighted the need for greater co-operation in a whole range of economic and social issues, if 1992 is not to engulf both parts of Ireland. They must make sure that, as an offshore island which will have none of the so-called benefits of the channel tunnel, they will still be able to play a proper role in the emerging Community.
I am sure that we are all indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East for the rare opportunity that he has given us to take ourselves away from the day-to-day horrors and incidents of Northern Ireland so that we may try to take a longer look at what is happening and to recognise and pay tribute to the many in Northern Ireland who are doing so much that is unsung, unseen but not unappreciated, at least not by hon. Members.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his words of appreciation of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East was fortunate in the ballot and he chose to introduce into our discussions on Northern Ireland matters and issues which are hugely important but which, because of the pressures of security and political development, frequently do not receive the attention that they deserve. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the spirit and the grace with which he introduced the debate.
This is the same parliamentary day on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his announcement during Northern Ireland Question Time. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has recognised, there is little that I can add to my right hon. Friend's statement at this time. Like the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, I welcome the Taoiseach's acceptance of the statement as a basis for moving forward. My right hon. Friend made a significant period available to all the parties precisely because the issues at stake are important. The significance is real and it is right that the parties should have the opportunity to consult and to consider carefully before making a response.
The speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East had the quality of consistency, for the House is aware of his commitment to democratic socialism, which he restated today. I noted en passant his reflections on what is happening within the Labour party, but, in the spirit of bipartisanship that has marked the debate so far, I shall not intrude into those private discussions.
The hon. Gentleman listed three factors that are important to democratic socialists—civil liberties, people working together and concern for the common good—and linked those factors to his broader initial reflections on the concept of democracy. I do not wish to suggest in any way that the three factors are not associated with democratic socialism, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that they are in no sense restricted to it. They are among the pillars


on which democracy is based. They are the common aspirations and commitments of all who are committed to democratic institutions and democratic ways of behaving.
The hon. Gentleman talked of wishing to see more class division in the politics of Northern Ireland. I understand what he means, but perhaps it is an unfortunate phrase. He said that one of the problems that has bedevilled the island of Ireland over the centuries is the concept of division. To wish away certain existing divisions and to replace them with class division seems not necessarily to advance things much further.
I understand the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comment. He was encouraging a reversion to more normal types of political activity, separated from issues of constitutionalism and the overbearing influence that history sometimes has on the conduct of politics in the island of Ireland, as he chose to illustrate his point from the Republic as well as the north.
At the very heart of democracy is the concept that people should freely give their consent to the government of the state and that the will of the majority should prevail, although that will is subject to periodic test on the understanding that the majority can change. It has to change on the basis of persuasion. That has been part of the problem of the island of Ireland and of political developments in Northern Ireland for a long time.
What has been known colloquially as border politics—the constitutional issue—has so overwhelmed the other concepts of politics that, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, they have tended to be sidelined. In his references to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, he alluded to the importance of article 1 being that it restated the fundamental democratic concept that the status cannot and will not be changed unless consent is freely given by the majority. Of course, article 1 went on to say that if such a change were to take place, Governments would react and respond accordingly.
The affirmation of consent freely given is very important, because it delineates the constitutional framework within which political developments within Northern Ireland will have to be seen for the foreseeable future. I know of no nationalist or republican, no matter how ardent, who believes that the constitutional position is likely to change democratically in the immediate or forseeable future. Therefore, it is important to hold that point in mind when we discuss the broader issues.
The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention in the first instance to the importance of economic policy to political development in the Province. Unemployment is too high. It is higher than in Great Britain and has been for some time, although the hon. Gentleman will share with me the satisfaction to be derived from the fact that it is running at about 28,000 fewer than it was at its peak in 1986. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), affirm at Question Time what I affirmed in the Appropriation debate on Monday—that the strength of Northern Ireland's economy is enabling it better to weather the current economic difficulties. That is why Ministers spend much time seeking for Northern Ireland further investment from anywhere in the world, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Northern Ireland is a place where profitability is possible and is frequently achieved, and which needs jobs. We are more than happy to welcome with open arms all who can contribute to investment and jobs. Getting people off the streets, getting them trained and into employment, and giving them a stake in the Province is an important element of the political development that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Having said that, the hon. Gentleman may wish to reflect on his remark about the inappropriateness of privatisation to Northern Ireland—not least in the light of our experience in respect of Shorts, which moved from the public to the private sector comparatively recently, just a couple of years ago. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East will be pleased to learn, as I was, that I think probably about 700 more people are employed by Shorts today, as a private sector company, than was the case when it was in the public sector. That improvement is a little difficult to square with what I thought was a touch of the democratic socialism edging its way into the hon. Gentleman's broader argument.
We can make common cause on the hon. Gentleman's point concerning the need to mobilise citizens in resisting terrorism. It is a fallacy in any society that those paid to offer a service of care to the community by upholding the law ought to shoulder full responsibility for the community in discharging that task. All of us have a responsibility, as citizens, for the communities in which we live.
In that regard, I pay tribute to the work of New Consensus, those with whom it is associated, and the various groups that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, for the stand that they have taken, which crosses communities in Northern Ireland and brings people together, in sending the message that the citizens of Northern Ireland are united in rejecting the ways of those who, because they cannot win the argument at the ballot box, resort to terrorism and violence.
Although the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East did not say so, I am sure that he would want all the citizens of Northern Ireland to be reminded that they have a responsibility also to offer their support and encouragement to the security forces and the police, to stand alongside them as they serve the community—frequently in the face of danger—and to make available to them whatever information they have which could lead to the apprehension, arrest, trial, and conviction of those who break the law, not least by committing acts of terrorism.
The fact that we have a good security service and police force does not absolve the public from their responsibilities as citizens and their obligation to observe common standards of decency and humanity

Mr. Harry Barnes: Families Against Intimidation and Terror has highlighted the case of Mickey Williams, who telephoned 999 after hearing screams which had to do with an incident that apparently involved the IRA. Mickey Williams received a death threat and was forced to flee the country. His home was invaded by people who were even prepared to tell Mr. Williams' eight-year-old child that his father would be killed. Families Against Intimidation and Terror subsequently campaigned widely, with the result that the death threat against Mr. Williams was technically lifted outside Northern Ireland. The IRA member concerned was arrested. The IRA will not allow Mr. Williams to return until that case has been dealt with, but


that incident shows the kind of changes that can be made by people standing up for themselves and for the normal processes of law and order, and refusing to be intimidated

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman offers an example of the more general theme in his speech.
One of the issues that New Consensus has focused on has been integrated education, and its development in our schools. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for his kind personal comments, and I noted the time and the date. While it would be nice if he were to make it a regular occurrence, I understand why he may not always wish to follow that course. However, he is right to point out the significance of what has been happening in our schools in the past few years.
For the first time, parents have the choice, under statute, of integrated schools as a third option alongside what are colloquially referred to as state schools and Catholic schools in Northern Ireland. It is an option which they ought to have. It is a matter for the parents to decide how they want to have their children educated, but there is no doubt that there is a small but growing movement, and a growing number of parents who wish their children to be educated in the same classroom as children from the other side of the community, in schools that value both traditions equally.
Having said that, it is clear that the number of children in integrated schools for the foreseeable future will be only a small proportion of those in schools. Therefore, it was necessary for us to consider what might be done to bridge the community divide for all the other children.
As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East knows, we wrote into the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 a number of curriculum changes, and he has highlighted education for mutual understanding. I appreciated his comments, as I appreciated his support in what was seen in some quarters as a reasonably contentious order. Nevertheless, there was support across the Chamber for those aspects of it and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the support that they gave to education for mutual understanding and the other new course, cultural heritage. It is important for the House to understand that those will be compulsory for all schoolchildren between the ages of five and 16.
The other curriculum development that I think is of special importance is the move to have a common history curriculum taught for the first time in our schools in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East pointed out, given the influence of history upon the politics and political development of the island of Ireland, that common history curriculum will also make a considerable contribution after a time.
I was also grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East for what he said about the development under the general title of "Kings in Conflict". I well remember having the pleasure of welcoming Mrs. Mary O'Rourke, the Education Minister from the Republic to the Ulster museum when we both launched that initiative, amid the "Kings in Conflict" exhibition, which ran so successfully at the museum for a number of months. I am pleased that it has moved to fruition and, as the hon. Gentleman said, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Belstead was able to go to Dublin recently to launch the final video version. Like him, I am impressed by it, and I can say that because I did not have a direct hand in planning it. Like the hon.
Gentleman, I believe that as it is used it will influence for good the next generation and the generation after that in Northern Ireland

Mr. McNamara: And in the Republic.

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes—and in the Republic. I restricted my remarks simply because this is a debate on political development in Northern Ireland, but the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is right to point out that it will have a significant influence in the Republic, just as it will in the north.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East was also right to stress the importance of the cultural traditions programme. One of the difficulties about the Irish language has been that for whatever reasons—this is not the time or the place to analyse them—it has become politicised over the years. It has been taken out of its cultural context and put into a political context. The Government believe—and as the Minister responsible I strongly believe—that it needs to be redeveloped in its cultural context. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, in that context it spans the community in Northern Ireland. He will have taken heart from the fact that I was able to announce the prospect of significant Government grants to the Ultach trust, for example, which was set up to develop the Irish language, without any political upset in the Province.
He will also have taken heart from the fact that I was able to announce a grant for an inquiry into the development of an interpretative centre at Dan Winter's cottage, the site of the origins of the Orange order in Northern Ireland—another cultural tradition of the Province involving, again, no political perturbation.
In all those ways, we must try to undermine what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East has described as sectarian politics. We have had a measure of success, not only in the social, economic and community—relations sphere but in that of elective politics. In some ways, that could be described as the most significant development in the past couple of years.
Of the 26 councils in Northern Ireland, about 10 now have a form of shared leadership: if the mayor or chairman comes from one tradition, his deputy comes from another. That development has been widely welcomed in the Province and, where it has come about, represents a challenge to the other councils that have not yet adopted the practice. Moreover, it has been widely welcomed throughout the community in Northern Ireland. We need only consider the standing and moral influence of councils such as Dungannon to appreciate that the concept of sharing—which does not always run smoothly, but which nevertheless is fundamentally important—is influencing people's attitudes.
Another welcome development is the way in which local politicians are joining forces with Ministers—trying to develop local economic plans with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North, or community relations plans with me. It is encouraging to note that, over the past 12 to 18 months, 10 councils have embarked on relationships with the Government that will involve them in employing community relations officers to work together with councillors and local people to bridge the community gap. Eight more councils have agreed to the arrangement and will be appointing community relations officers; we are


negotiating with five more. Only three out of the 26 are not either involved in the scheme or seriously considering it. That represents a development in elective politics. One of the requirements is that the programmes cannot proceed unless the elected representatives of the people vote in open council to endorse the scheme, which carries with it the thumbprints of elected politicians from both sides of the community.
All those developments contain a message of hope and encouragement—whether they relate to the fundamentals of democracy which all of us affirm and reaffirm, to the concept of consent freely given and the importance of persuasion rather than threat and intimidation, to the economy, to the social sphere in the commitment to fair employment and the provision of good services, to community relations and education, or to local councils. We are able to send out that message this morning. This measure carries bipartisan support, not in the intricacies of political theory or the details of Government policy, but in the bipartisan commitment to all activities that seek to bring people together—as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East said, to affirm civil liberties, to encourage working together, to promote the common good—and it will be a measure of agreement widely welcomed in the Province. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to send that message today.

Science and Engineering Research Council

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important issue of some of the possible consequences of the financial crisis currently facing the Science and Engineering Research Council. May I say, Mr. Speaker, how honoured we are to have you gracing this debate at such an early hour.
There was an important debate, initiated by the Opposition, in the House on 6 February on the funding of science in this country. Not surprisingly, quite a lot of the discussion at that time focused on the position of the Science and Engineering Research Council. I do not wish to repeat much of the argument in that debate on the Government's general record on science funding. I would just like to make one point that was repeated in the debate. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) the Labour party spokesman on science is here, because he made this point effectively in the debate, as did others.
I very much regret that the Government have not published, as has been the normal practice in recent years, the advice given by the Advisory Board for the Research Councils. Whatever view one takes of the Government's overall funding of science and, in particular, the latest allocations announced to the science budget generally and to individual research councils, there can be no dispute about the funding crisis at SERC.
On 7 February the Science and Engineering Research Council issued a press notice with the heading
SERC's measures to combat shortfall in its funding".
Away back in November, because the level of its funding for the current year was being outstripped by inflation, the council had to implement severe measures to cut back spending, including, I believe, a virtual freeze on recruitment. The announcement about the proposed level of funding for 1991–92 for the research council has aggravated that situation.
We have to understand that SERC has a very important role to play within the general framework of science in this country. I respect the position of the Medical Research Council and am a former employee of the Agricultural and Food Research Council, and I understand that they have problems; but the situation confronting SERC stands out as particularly serious. I very much regret the statements that have appeared of late, some in the quality press, that somehow we should not be involved in big science, that somehow there is a case for retrenchment in, if not actual withdrawal from, British participation in what is loosely described as big science, especially astronomy and nuclear physics, the two areas which are particularly threatened and at risk.
I put it to the Minister that it is the Science and Engineering Research Council's role to support that science, because in practice the huge costs involved in equipment and in international subscriptions are such that no university department will pick up this work. SERC is the only organisation which can sponsor much of this research. That is why it is so crucial that it recognises its responsibility to do so.
I make no bones of the fact that my first reason for raising this subject at this hour concerns my interest, as a former scientist and an Edinburgh Member of Parliament, in the future of the royal observatory, Edinburgh. That


observatory and the other SERC observatory, the royal Greenwich observatory at Cambridge are currently the subject of a review. That review was initiated prior to the funding crisis becoming apparent, and certainly prior to any decisions being taken by the council about the funding crisis. However, there is no doubt that the financial crisis puts pressure on that review and makes it more likely that some bad decisions could be taken because of the need to save money in the short term. The review was initiated when Professor Longair accepted another important appointment, and the council decided that that would be an appropriate time to consider the contributions made by the two observatories.
The royal observatory has 122 staff, 20 of whom are based at Hilo in Hawaii. It also funds another 40 local staff in Hawaii. In this modern age, it makes sense for observatories to base their modern telescopes in favourable locations. The real telescope work is carried out at Hawaii.
The royal observatory has a valuable record across the whole spectrum of astronomy. It provides national facilities for astronomers throughout the United Kingdom. Astronomers from a whole range of universities use its facilities. We benefit from the close relationship of the observatory with the astronomy department of Edinburgh university. I emphasise that it is the only SERC laboratory in Scotland. Its director is also the professor of astronomy at Edinburgh and the Astronomer Royal. There is no doubt that that symbiosis between the university department and the SERC staff has created a successful climate for scientific endeavour, which helps to make the observatory such a useful facility for astronomers throughout the country.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the House detailing the achievement of the observatory. I shall concentrate on only a few aspects. What stands out in Edinburgh is the work on instrumentation. It is an important area in astronomy and in the learning of more and more about our planet. The observatory's work is internationally renowned. It has recently delivered a spectrometer to Hawaii which is acknowledged to be three or four years ahead of any of its rivals, including those being developed in the United States. Two large 8m telescopes are to be developed in the late 1990s, one of which is to be based in Hawaii. It is a tribute to the royal observatory staff that they will be managing the 8m telescope in Hawaii. There will be one in the northern hemisphere and one in the southern hemisphere.
The instrumentation department undoubtedly has an exceptional international reputation. Optical engineers, experts in computer software work and scientists in other disciplines work together in that department. Basically, their work is related mainly to telescopes, used by astronomers. We should never lose sight of the fact—it was something of which I was very much aware when I worked as a scientist—that the exchange between pure and applied scientists means that the work in some areas of science can be of great benefit to work in other areas. Examples of that relate to work carried out by scientists at the royal observatory in Edinburgh. They analyse slides and pictures of the sky using the sophisticated Cosmos machine which measures the density of photographic emulsion. The pictures are digitised and analysed by computer. Those instruments and that software can be used to improve the detection of cancer cells in cervical smears. This approach can also be used to detect breast

cancer at an early stage from X-rays of women's breasts. That is an important collaboration between the Medical Research Council and the scientists at the royal obsdervatory in Edinburgh. That is an important example of the spin-offs that can result from research, particularly when there is such a high-calibre team as that operating in Edinburgh.
The team has also collaborated with the Admiralty in analysing the bubbles that are left by submarines as they move under water. The Admiralty is using some of the team's facilities and techniques to improve submarine detection.
There are other areas of activity at the royal observatory in Edinburgh that I have not had time to mention but which are outstanding by international standards. It would be an act of scientific vandalism if SERC, during its current review, destroyed those teams. That is what is at stake.
There might be a proposal to merge aspects of the work of the royal Greenwich observatory at Cambridge with that in Edinburgh. I can think of nothing more damaging than to transfer the instrumentation work from Edinburgh to Cambridge. If that were proposed, many of the scientists would not move to Cambridge. Such a proposal would destroy one of the jewels of the SERC's effort and that would be nothing short of an act of scientific vandalism.
The threat to the royal observatory in Edinburgh is not a direct consequence of the funding crisis confronting SERC. However, we in Edinburgh fear that the additional pressure that is being brought to bear on the council to make cuts and achieve rationalisations, even when they cannot be justified, could lead to damaging decisions being taken that would seriously affect the long-term contribution that the royal observatory in Edinburgh with its tremendous history, can make in that area.
I want to refer briefly to the threat to nuclear physics, which is another aspect of big science to arise from the crisis facing SERC. A great deal has been made of the fact that about two thirds of the funding of the nuclear physics board within SERC is directed to CERN, the European centre for nuclear research. We must consider these issues objectively. If we examine a graph of CERN's total budget at 1989 prices, between 1980 and 1989 it is clear that the budget has effectively been constant. There was a slight increase, but that was due mainly to new member states joining. Since 1980, the CERN budget has risen in real terms by less than 5 per cent., despite the cost of building the LEP—large electron-position collider. It would be wrong to say that the CERN contribution was a particularly unpredictable element of the nuclear physics board's budget.
The problem is that the nuclear physics board is having to bear the brunt of proposed cuts within SERC. It seems that the council proposes to hit hardest the nuclear structure research as opposed to particle physics.
There is international recognition of the value of the research and the excellence of the British contribution to it. It would be a great setback to not only British science but science throughout the world if some of the proposed cuts were implemented. I shall give only one quotation because I know that there is another debate to follow this one. It is from Claude Detraz the chairman of the European organisation of nuclear physics laboratory heads. With


reference to the proposed cuts in nuclear structure research and in particular the proposal to end the support for such research at the Daresbury lab, he said:
It seems unusual to say the least that such a brutal change should not be accompanied by a detailed evaluation of the anticipated evolution of the field in the next five to ten years.
That is my crucial point on what is happening to nuclear physics research in general and the nuclear structure physics of the Science and Engineering Research Council.
It would be a tragedy if long-term benefits to British science were sacrificed for short-term financial considerations. Undoubtedly, the announced cuts and the further restrictions that they are likely to place on the work, are not the result of a proper objective review of the science and whether it is an area that Britain should be in. I recognise that hard choices have to be made. We cannot give scientists their head simply to carry on working on whatever they want throughout their careers. I respect that. As a former working scientist in my research establishment, I am aware that there were areas in which it was necessary to be fairly ruthless and tell scientists that they had to stop their work because it could not be justified.
I do not dispute that hard decisions have to be taken, but they should be taken on the basis of a proper, objective view of the value of the science and the contribution that it can make.
A supplementary budget for SERC for 1991–92 must be announced before the recess. That is the only way in which we can avoid short-term financial considerations doing long-term damage to British science.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Well——

Dr. Bray: In one sentence

Mr. Speaker: Yes, in one sentence

Dr. Bray: We are about to embark on next year's public expenditure increase round and we must find increases for science budgets in the next financial year, whatever happens in this year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has done the House a service in raising the importance of science for the second time in six weeks. I begin by informing the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), who has direct ministerial responsibility for science cannot be here. He is engaged on scientific work. He is chairing a session of the Engelberg forum on bio-ethics in Switzerland.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the publication of advice from the Advisory Board for the

Research Councils. There has never been any obligation on the Secretary of State to publish that advice. It is confidential advice, and therefore, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether to publish it.
The core of the debate is the budget of the Science and Engineering Research Council. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made a good case for big science. Of course, the big international sciences such as astronomy are important, even though they are expensive.
It is equally important that the council's budget be properly balanced to ensure that the key smaller grants around the universities and the smaller scientific institutions are also given sufficient headroom. That is the purpose of the council's current review.
The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to his concern and that of his constituents about the future of the royal observatory in Edinburgh. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State visited the observatory recently and he has seen for himself the high quality of the work there. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman—and I have the council's agreement to give him this assurance—that the royal observatories in Edinburgh and in Cambridge will continue as separate establishments. There are, therefore, no plans to close either of them.
The review in hand has two purposes. It is intended to ensure that some of the more over-optimistic elements of the council's programme are properly balanced against the need to protect the smaller grants as well as the larger programmes. There should be no doubting the Government's commitment to science. The real-terms increase in the funding for science of 23 per cent. over the past 10 years is a good example of the importance that the Government attach to this area.

It being Eight o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That—
(1) the provisions of the Order [8th November] relating to Business of the House shall be further modified, as follows:

(a) in paragraph (1) shall be inserted the words 'and in paragraph (7) the word 'nine' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 64';
(b) for paragraph (3) there shall be substituted: '(3) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 22nd March, 19th and 26th April, 3rd and 10th May and 5th July; and
(c) for paragraph (4) there shall be substituted: '(4) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 15th March, 17th May, and 14th, 21st and 28th June, and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on 1st and 15th May, and 5th and 12th June'; and
(2) Orders of the day which have been set down for 12th, 19th and 26th April and 3rd May shall be read and discharged; and the said Orders shall be set down for 19th and 26th April and 3rd and 10th May, respectively.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Sadler's Wells Theatre

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

8 am

Mr. Chris Smith: I should begin by declaring an interest, although it is entirely non-pecuniary, as a director of Sadler's Wells theatre, which lies in my constituency. It is the future funding, survival and continued excellence of the work of that theatre that I wish to raise this morning.
As the Minister will know, Sadler's Wells was founded 300 years ago, and relaunched 60 years ago by Lilian Baylis. In the past nine years, it has presented 124 seasons by British companies and 69 seasons by foreign companies, covering 18 different nations to a total of more than 2 million people. Many of its productions have been financed and presented entirely by Sadler's Wells. Many have won awards. But for Sadler's Wells, we might never have seen, for example, the grace of the Central ballet of China, the excitement of Cumbre Flamenca, the rhythms of the Kodo drummers, the flair of Michael Clark or the innovations of the Paul Taylor dance company.
In 1988, the Lilian Baylis theatre was opened alongside the Sadler's Wells theatre to complement the work of the main theatre and to provide a valuable new venue for small-scale professional and community work.
Since 1981, a community and education project has been in place at Sadler's Wells involving and serving hundreds of local people. I invite the Minister to come with me almost any day to Sadler's Wells to see the pensioners' groups, the tenants' and residents' organisations and the groups of schoolchildren who are enabled by the community programme to see how a theatre works, to learn about dance and drama, to meet performers and often to find out at first hand about the productions taking place on the main stage.
As an exciting possibility for the medium-term future, the theatre, together with Thames Water and the London borough of Islington, has been exploring the idea of achieving an entirely new theatre immediately beside the present site. That could present a wonderful new asset for the performing arts in London. In short, Sadler's Wells has an international reputation and represents one of our capital city's finest artistic assets.
Lilian Baylis refounded Sadler's Wells as a theatre for all the people—accessible to all—and I am proud to say that that remains the theatre's policy to this day. Lest it be thought that I am perhaps a little biased in my appreciation of the work that Sadler's Wells does, I will quote the assessment made by the officers of the London boroughs grants scheme of the theatre's work and standing. Its report to the London boroughs grants committee says:
Sadler's Wells theatre remains a key venue and one certainly worthy of support. The Lilian Baylis theatre and associated community and education projects underscore the company's unique position and conscious regard for a less exclusive and broader based definition of the arts. The indications are good.
Yet for all that, Sadler's Wells receives only 6 per cent. of its entire annual income from public funds of any kind. By comparison, the Royal Opera house receives 42 per cent., the English National opera, which came into being largely as a result of work undertaken at Sadler's Wells, 56 per cent. and the National theatre, 56 per cent. I do not

want to denigrate in any way the work of those three great institutions, but the comparison serves to show how amazingly Sadler's Wells performs on a shoestring of public funding.
The theatre has made strenuous efforts to attract commercial corporate sponsorship. It has received in particular strong support for a five-year period from Digital and it receives 20 per cent of its income from sponsorship sources. But especially in a recession, the scope for increased income of that kind is inevitably limited.
The theatre is thriving artistically. It has had one of its best ever seasons, attracting audiences to a series of excellent productions. But through no fault of its own it finds itself currently facing serious financial difficulties. Just four weeks ago, we had to make painful budget-saving decisions at our theatre board meeting.
There are a number of particular problems. Sadler's Wells royal ballet has moved to Birmingham, taking substantial rental income with it. The sad ending of the new Sadler's Wells opera caused a one-off financial loss in resolving the immediate problems of cessation. The American financier who had committed himself to the creation of the Lilian Baylis theatre pulled out with massive bills unpaid. As a result, the theatre has a historic debt which it will take several years of frantically hard work to pay off. Therefore, the public subsidy provision for the theatre becomes crucial in determining whether its community and education work can survive, whether its commitment to excellence and innovation can continue, and whether its very survival can be guaranteed.
The position over public subsidy is difficult and uncertain to say the least. First, the Minister will be aware of the division within the London boroughs grants committee and its current failure to agree a budget. He will also be aware of its standstill nature, at very best, even if a budget is agreed. He will be aware of the fact that the arts are listed as the lowest priority within the various categories in that draft budget. Although Sadler's Wells passes the committee's assessment with flying colours, the sheer uncertainty that is affecting the theatre, as with hundreds of other London arts organisations, is inevitably harmful.
Secondly, the transformation of Greater London Arts into the London arts board has created further uncertainty. It is good news that a chairman for that board has now been appointed. But there is still no chief executive and no clear mandate for future policy. It will take time to develop that, but in the meantime there is the danger that new initiatives will suffer. After several years of preparatory work, Sadler's Wells submitted an application for revenue funding to Greater London Arts, just two days before the abolition of Greater London Arts was announced. It was prohibited from entertaining any new applications, and the Sadler's Wells application, sadly, fell foul of that rule.
Thirdly, the theatre's funding from the London borough of Islington is small, as is only appropriate in view of the constrained funds of a relatively small local authority and the regional, if not national, nature of the theatre. Despite poll tax capping, Islington has held its grant for Sadler's Wells more or less steady and I strongly hope that that will continue.
Fourthly, and most important, the major source of public subsidy should be the Arts Council. In 1986, when the GLC was abolished and a funding crisis resulted, an


arrangement was reached for Sadler's Wells to receive, albeit indirectly,—100,000 in funding from the Arts Council in the first year. The money was channelled through some of the touring companies appearing at Sadler's Wells, as the Arts Council claimed that Sadler's Wells was a so-called receiving theatre and as such was ineligible for direct support under Arts Council rules. I shall return to this point, which is crucial to any decision on the future funding of the theatre.
None the less, in 1986 that £100,000 was an enormously welcome and essential lifeline. In 1987, funding fell to £90,000 and in 1988 it fell further to £60,000. This year, it has been £53,700. In a recent decision, the touring board of the Arts Council reduced the forthcoming year's funding to £30,000. In other words, within five years, during which the theatre has experienced acute financial difficulty, the Arts Council's grant has been cut by more than two thirds. That is disastrous for the theatre. I urge the Minister as passionately as I can to ensure that the decline in funding is reversed.
Sadler's Wells does not fit into any neat Arts Council category; it is not a normal receiving theatre. It is a unique entity as it carries out a proactive, entrepreneurial and international role in opera, dance and ballet. It frequently selects, finances and presents its productions at its own risk, on its own initiative and with its own style and success. It links its productions with the education and community work that it has built up, and it provides a base from which companies can launch tours throughout the country.
To do that, Sadler's Wells requires public assistance with its programming and infrastructure. It requires substantially more than the £30,000 that has been allocated by the Arts Council. Surely an uprating of the 1986 figure of £100,000 to allow for inflation should be considered. There may not be a ready made pigeon hole for Sadler's Wells in the Arts Council's structure, but it must look only to the Arts Council for the bulk of its public support. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will do what he can to secure better Arts Council support for a theatre that I am sure he, like me, holds in high esteem.
To see the joy on a child's face, transfixed by the performance on stage, to share the delight of a local pensioner in learning the mysteries of theatrical technique, to savour the grace and dignity of dance at its exuberant best—those are what Sadler's Wells is all about and those are what I ask the Minister to help to secure for the future.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Tim Renton): The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has a longstanding and informed interest in the arts. This morning, at 8 o'clock, even after an all-night sitting he has argued his case for the Sadler's Wells theatre with passion, skill and courtesy and, in his final words, with very considerable eloquence.
Just before Christmas I visited Sadler's Wells to see the ballet Cinderella, presented by the London City ballet. As the hon. Gentleman has just described, there were many children in the audience—as there should have been at a performance of Cinderella just before Christmas. The joy to which he has just referred was very evident in their eyes, as was their pleasure in seeing the ballet extremely well

danced. Joy was to be seen not only in the eyes of the children; it was in the eyes of the grown-ups, too, including those of my wife and myself. I well understand, therefore, his affection for and pride in this famous theatre—an affection and pride which are felt locally.
I first visited Sadler's Wells when I was 17. The hon. Gentleman reminded us that it has been a place of entertainment for over 300 years. More high jinks than high art went on there during the early part of the theatre's life. It has had its times of success and failure, which is typical of theatres throughout the country and the whole world.
Sadler's Wells's golden period began in 1931 when, against all the odds, Lilian Baylis arranged for the building of the present theatre—"a lyric house" as she saw it, to complement her temple of dramatic arts at the Old Vic. What a delightful phrase that is—"a lyric house." With Dame Ninette de Valois—another quite remarkable woman who is, happily, very much still with us—Baylis proceeded to lay the foundations of what today are our two royal ballet companies and the English National opera. That wonderful and unique achievement is inevitably and indelibly linked with the Wells.
It was very kind of the hon. Gentleman to invite me to attend performances with him at Sadler's Wells. As I have just mentioned, I was there to see Cinderella just before Christmas. I was also there in January when I had the great pleasure of attending the theatre's diamond jubilee celebrations—a memorable occasion indeed which underlined the formative role of Sadler's Wells in the blossoming of ballet and opera in this country, a blossoming which, surprisingly, has happened only recently.
As the hon. Gentleman reminded us, the theatre remains a vibrant force in the cultural life of the capital, presenting the work of a wide range of dance, opera and other companies from home and, with some distinction, from abroad, too. I know that, as the hon. Gentleman told us, the theatre pursues the commendable policy of attracting new audiences and that, in the Baylis tradition, does all that it can to ensure that seat prices are affordable.
I understand, too, that recently the theatre has had a particularly successful year in terms of the quality of its productions, high attendance levels and the balancing of its budget—no mean achievements. In all of that, I am at one with the hon. Gentleman. However, as I think he suspects, that is the easy part of my speech. Now I have to turn to the more difficult area. First, however, may I pick up his point about the possible new development.
I, too, recently met Stephen Remington, the director of Sadler's Wells, primarily in order to learn more about the proposed collaboration with Thames Water to build a new theatre for Sadler's Wells as part of a major redevelopment of the new Riverhead site. That is a serious proposition, and I wish the venture well. It will be a significant and welcome addition to arts facilities in the capital if it succeeds.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Remington took the opportunity to inform me of the theatre's revenue funding position. I listened with great interest, but I had to explain that this was very much a matter for the relevant funding agencies—the Arts Council, Greater London Arts, the London boroughs grants committee and the hon. Gentleman's local authority, Islington borough council. The system that we employ in this country for Government funding of the arts relies in many ways on what in recent weeks I have


had to refer to with almost numbing frequency as the application of the arm's-length principle. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is not my job to make judgments on artistic policies and priorities. I might often like to do so, but by tradition—a good one—such judgments are a matter for the Arts Council and its advisers, and for the regional arts bodies. I do not fund individual arts organisations directly. I allocate grant-in-aid to the Arts Council and it is for it to decide—in the light of its funding policies and after expert assessments from its panels—the allocation of funds within and between the various art forms. The Arts Council is also responsible for the allocation of funds to the regional arts associations shortly to become the new regional arts boards, which, in turn, decide on the pattern and levels of funding to their clients.
Funding of the arts, as the hon. Gentleman, with all his experience, knows, is always a very sensitive issue. Getting the allocations right between all the bodies with a good claim on public funding is not and never has been easy. This is a task best left to the sort of disinterested but expert advisers on which the Arts Council can call. I suspect that, despite his heartfelt appeals to me today, the hon. Gentleman would agree with me on that basic principle.
It has been an underlying principle of Arts Council policy over the years that it should not fund what are referred to as receiving theatres. The hon. Gentleman used the expression himself. A receiving theatre does not have its own producing companies. It just attracts companies to its house. This decision is based on a judgment of the most effective use of the inevitably finite resources available to the Arts Council.
A proper division of responsibilities is for the Arts Council to support producing companies and for local funding bodies to support the receiving theatres in their areas. That policy has been applied with great success, enabling the growth of a marvellous range of drama, dance and opera companies that tour very extensively. The Birmingham Royal Ballet, London Contemporary Dance, Phoenix Dance, Glyndebourne Touring Opera and Opera 80 are just some of the Arts Council clients that give performances at Sadler's Wells. At the same time, there is a network of receiving theatres, from Bradford to Swindon, from Hull to Plymouth, that are maintained essentially with local support.
Sadler's Wells is regarded by the Arts Council as a receiving theatre and, on that basis, it has specifically declined to accept that it has a funding responsibility to the theatre. I know that Sadler's Wells fiercely argues that it is not simply a receiving house but that it acts in an entrepreneurial capacity in promoting the shows that are presented there. The council has considered that view with great care, but suggests that many receiving theatres act as promoters in the sense that they choose and promote the companies that perform in their theatres; and that by definition Sadler's Wells is not predominantly a producer, or even a commissioner of work

Mr. Chris Smith: This point gets to the heart of the argument about the Arts Council's approach to Sadler's Wells. Will the Minister answer two questions? First, has the Arts Council, in reaching that decision about Sadler's Wells, taken into account its role in attracting international companies into Britain, and introducing them, for the first time, to British audiences? Secondly, if that is the argument of the Arts Council, why does it provide funding directly to the South Bank Centre?

Mr Renton: The South Bank Centre is different, because it provides a complex of facilities, such as concert halls, and so receives a large grant. As to the hon. Gentleman's first point, the Arts Council has taken into account the fact that Sadler's Wells receives international touring companies. In one or two instances, applications are to be decided on a project basis, which will deal with international touring companies coming to Sadler's Wells in the year immediately ahead.
As a result of the GLC transitional funding arrangement, it was agreed that the theatre would receive financial help, but on a reducing scale for a three-year period, during which time it would negotiate with the local authorities for a replacement of their metropolitan grant. It was on that basis that Sadler's Wells received £100,000 from the Arts Council in 1986–87, reducing to £53,000 in 1988–89.
The hon. Gentleman referred, as I expected him to, to Greater London Arts. That body did not assume any responsibility for funding Sadler's Wells after the abolition of the Greater London council and does not therefore provide core or revenue funding. It does support from time to time specific projects that meet its funding guidelines. Sadler's Wells has applied for project funding and has been invited to apply further when funding guidelines for 1991–92 are published in a few weeks' time.
The new London arts board, to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, will be fully operational on 1 October 1991. Its establishment will provide a new framework for arts funding in London and Sadler's Wells will naturally be at liberty to pursue its case vigorously with the new board. I am glad that the London arts board has a chairman, Clive Priestley, whom I appointed the other day. He is experienced in arts matters in the capital and I think that he will bring a great quality of leadership to the arts board.
I accept that a good deal of uncertainty has been generated as a result of the delay in the London boroughs grant scheme being settled for the fast-approaching new financial year. I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on this matter. My right hon. Friend prescribed a maximum level of expenditure, at the figure of £30·1 million, which was recommended by the London boroughs grants committee. I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment that the committee, at its meeting earlier this week, did not agree a budget. However, I was pleased to learn that at that meeting, all-party agreement, in principle, was reached on the grant for Sadler's Wells, and for a number of other arts clients, for 1991–92. I understand that the Sadler's Wells grant is to be maintained at its current year level—£73,000. I am sure that this outcome will be welcome.
I understand that Islington borough council, which this year is funding Sadler's Wells to the extent of £24,000, proposes to maintain its funding in the year just starting, although with a reduction of 4 per cent.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed by what I have said. I should have liked to give him more encouragement. However, as I said, I do not become involved in decisions relating to the funding of individual arts organisations. I have great sympathy with any company that seeks to safeguard its financial future and expand its artistic horizons. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his long experience, resources for the arts will always be finite. Fine words butter no parsnips. I suspect that, under a Labour Government, those resources


would be even more finite, and therefore more limited, than under a Conservative Government who have increased the grant to the Arts Council by 12·5 per cent in the current year and 11 per cent. in the coming year.
More generally, much of the recent uncertainty about arrangements for the funding of the arts in London has now been removed, with the firm starting date set for the new London arts board. This will create a climate of

renewed confidence and an opportunity for comprehensive reappraisal of existing policies. Against that background, Sadler's Wells will wish to consider how best to take this matter forward. I am confident that, given the dedication and talent at its disposal, Sadler's Wells and its board will meet and overcome the challenges of the future with their usual resourcefulness. I wish the hon. Gentleman and the other members of the board every continued success.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eight o'clock.